Arroyo Grande City Council
April 14, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

AGENDA SUMMARY

Tuesday, April 14, 2026, 6:00 p.m.

In person at:

Arroyo Grande City Council Chamber
215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
AND via Zoom at:
https://arroyogrande-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NRsyFrUIQ_6179_iBTyDVA Please click the link above to register to join the Zoom Meeting This City Council meeting is being conducted in a hybrid in-person/virtual format. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for any reason. Members of the public may participate and provide public comment on agenda items during the meeting in person at the location identified above, by joining the Zoom meeting, or by submitting written public comments to the Clerk of the Council at [email protected]. Meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 20 and streamed on the City’s Website.

CLOSED SESSION:

None.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

4. FLAG SALUTE

5. AGENDA REVIEW

5.a Closed Session Announcements
None.

5.b Ordinances read in title only
Recommended Action:

Move that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title only and all further readings be waived.

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

6.a Honorary Proclamation Declaring April 2026 as "National Sexual Assault Awareness Month"

6.b Honorary Proclamation Declaring April 24, 2026 as "Arbor Day"

6.c City Manager Communications
(DOWNING)
Recommended Action:

Receive correspondence/comments as presented by the City Manager and Provide direction, as necessary.

6.c.1 Mayor's Commendation Recognizing the Recreation Services Department

7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
None.

Reports are made during the Second Council Meeting each month.

8. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Members of the public may provide public comment in-person or remotely by registering and joining the Zoom meeting utilizing the link provided below. Once in the meeting, please use the “raise hand” feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment.

Click the link below to register to join the webinar: https://arroyograndeorg.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NRsyFrUIQ_6179_iBTyDVA •
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
•
Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time.

Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for any reason. Please attend in person or submit your comment via email to the City Clerk by 2:00 p.m. the day of the meeting to have it included as part of the record.

The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding Council Member may:
• Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
• A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.

It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future Council agenda.
•
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
• Comments should be limited to 1 minute or less.

Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed to individual Council members.
•
Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or member of the audience shall not be permitted.
•

9. CONSENT AGENDA
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.

9.a Approval of Minutes
(MATSON)
Recommended Action:

Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 24, 2026, as submitted.

9.b Cash Disbursement Ratification
(VALENTINE)
Recommended Action:

Review and ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of March 1 through March 15, 2026.

9.c Statement of Investment Deposits for February 2026
(VALENTINE)
Recommended Action:

Receive and file the attached report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande as of February 28, 2026, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b).

9.d Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Report, Preliminary FY 2026- 27 Budget and Resolution of Intention to Levy
(BOHLKEN)
Recommended Action:
1) Approve Annual Assessment Report and Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget; 2) Adopt a Resolution of Intention declaring the intention to continue the Arroyo Grande Business Improvement District, to continue the basis for and to levy the assessments for the District, and to set a date for the public hearing on the District and the assessment for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year; and
3) Set the date for a public hearing for April 28, 2026, in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 36534; and
4) Find that the recommended actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because these efforts have no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378).

9.e Senate Bill 1 Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt a Resolution adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27 funded by Senate

Bill 1;
2) Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to submit the Resolution to the California Transportation Commission (CTC); and
3) Make findings that adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the adoption in itself has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)

9.f Red Curb Adjustments, Huasna Road
(ROBESON)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt a Resolution approving the addition of 15 feet of restricted parking and removal of 77 feet of restricted parking on the north side of Huasna Road just west of Rosewood Lane; and
2) Determine that the action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption because it is a minor alteration of an existing structure that involves negligible or no expansion of the existing use and no exceptions to the Class 1 exemption apply. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.)

9.g Appointment to the Planning Commission
(MATSON)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt a Resolution appointing Cory Hanh to the Planning Commission; and 2) Determine that approving the appointments to the Planning Commission is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.).

9.h Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to Implement Housing Element Programs A. 1-2 and A. 10-2
(PEREZ)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt an Ordinance implementing Housing Element Programs A. 1-2 and A. 10-2 by amending Chapter 16.36 relating to allowed residential uses and residential density in Mixed-Use zones; and
2) Find that the Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085;

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.a Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001;Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust

(PEREZ)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case 26-001 and approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Construction of Ninety-Two (92) Multi-Family Dwelling Units; Location – 1271 and 1281 James Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust, and Finding the Project Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a), and Categorically Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.

10.b Architectural Review 25-005; Public Art on Private Property; Location – 201 E. Branch St.; Applicant – Monarch Books, Taneesha Regez
(PEREZ)
Recommended Action:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying Architectural Review 25-005 for a proposed mural at 201 East Branch Street; and
2) Find that the denial of the proposed mural is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves or rejects (Pub. Resources Code §21080(b)(5); State CEQA Guidelines, §15270(a)), and the denial will not have direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, §15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3); § 15378).

11. BUSINESS ITEMS
None.

12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Any Council Member may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council policies and procedures, Council Members may request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or request that staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any request to place a matter of business for original consideration on a future agenda requires the concurrence of at least two other Council Members.

13. ADJOURNMENT
All staff reports or other written documentation, including any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of business on the agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk’s office, 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact the Legislative and Information Services Department at 805-473-5400 as soon as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.

This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 Agenda reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City’s website at www.arroyogrande.org If you

would like to subscribe to receive email or text message notifications when agendas are posted, you can sign up online through the “Notify Me” feature.

City Council Meetings are streamed live on the City’s Website and recorded for replay on Arroyo Grande’s Government Access Channel 20.

Item 6.a.

Item 6.b.

Item 9.a.

ACTION MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
March 24, 2026, 5:00 p.m.

Hybrid City Council Chamber/Virtual Zoom Meeting
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
Council Members Present: Mayor Caren Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Jamie Maraviglia, Council Member Jim
Guthrie, Council Member Kate Secrest,
Council Member Aileen Loe
Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney Isaac Rosen, City Manager Matthew Downing,
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Bill Robeson, Planning Manager Andrew
Perez, Police Chief David Culver, City
Engineer Shannon Sweeney
This meeting was conducted in a hybrid in-person/virtual format. ____________________________________________________________________________ CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M.:

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Matson took roll call.

3. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Ray Russom led the flag salute.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Mayor Ray Russom led the flag salute.

5. CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Rosen announced the City Council will recess to a closed session for the following and will report any reportable action at the City Council Regular meeting at 6:00 p.m.:
a) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 (b)(1)
Title: City Manager

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2026
PAGE 2
2 Item 9.a.
b) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Negotiator: City Attorney Isaac Rosen
Title: City Manager

6. ADJOURNMENT
City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:01 p.m.

City Council adjourned Closed Session at 5:43 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Matson took roll call.

3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION

4. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Ray Russom led the flag salute.

5. AGENDA REVIEW
Mayor Ray Russom referred to the Supplemental Information regarding Item 10.a.

City Attorney Rosen stated that the appellant has requested a continuance on Item 10.a.

Mayor Ray Russom announced a conflict of interest and left the meeting at 6:02 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia presided.

City Attorney Rosen acknowledged supplementary information and commented that staff is recommending a one-time continuance of the item to the next regular meeting of the City Council, which is scheduled for April 14, 2026, and commented on making the reasonable accommodation.

City Attorney Rosen commented that staff would re-notice the public hearing for the April 14, 2026 meeting, should the Council approve the continuance.

Moved by Council Member Loe
Seconded by Council Member Guthrie
Continue Item 10.a. "Appeal Case 26-001; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location -1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants - Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2026
PAGE 3
3 Item 9.a.

Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust" to a date certain of April 14, 2026 and not open the public hearing at this meeting.

AYES (4): Council Member Loe, Council Member Guthrie, Council Member Secrest, and Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia
ABSENT (1): Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (4 to 0)

5.a Closed Session Announcements
Mayor Ray Russom returned to the meeting.

City Attorney Rosen announced that there was no reportable action from the following meetings:

March 10, 2026 and March 24, 2026
a) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 (b)(1)
Title: City Manager
b) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS:

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Negotiator: City Attorney Isaac Rosen
Title: City Manager

5.b Ordinances read in title only
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia
Move that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title only and all further readings be waived.

AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, Council Member Guthrie, Council Member Secrest, and Council Member Loe
Passed (5 to 0)

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

6.a Honorary Proclamation Declaring April 2026 as "Month of the Child" and "Child Abuse Prevention Month"
Mayor Ray Russom presented a Proclamation declaring April 2026 as "Month of the Child" and "Child Abuse Prevention Month".

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2026
PAGE 4
4 Item 9.a.

Jamie Sonbonmatsu, SLO County Early Care and Learning, accepted the Proclamation.

No action was taken on this Item.

6.b City Manager Communications
City Manager Downing provided information regarding the FCFA Open House on March 28; 37th Annual Egg Hunt and Festival on April 4; Summer Activity Guide is coming out; Wesley and Vernon Water Line Replacement Project update; Pedestrian Improvement Project update; Huasna Roundabout Community Meeting on March 30; and the Halcyon Complete Streets Project beginning this summer. City Manager Downing responded to questions from the Council.

No action was taken on this item.

7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
The City Council provided brief reports from the following committee, commission, board, or other subcommittee meetings that they attended as the City’s appointed representative.

7.a MAYOR RAY RUSSOM:

1. Audit Committee

2. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)

3. Five Cities Fire Authority JPA Board

4. San Luis Obispo County Mayor's Meeting

5. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)

6. Other

7.b MAYOR PRO TEM MARAVIGLIA:

1. Five Cities Fire Authority JPA Board

2. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Board

3. REACH Summit

7.c COUNCIL MEMBER GUTHRIE:

1. Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) Policy Board

2. Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)

3. REACH Economic Development Roundtable

4. REACH Summit

7.d COUNCIL MEMBER SECREST:

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2026
PAGE 5
5 Item 9.a.

1. Air Pollution Control District (APCD)

2. Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC)

3. South County Chambers of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee

4. Other

7.e COUNCIL MEMBER LOE:

1. Council of Governments/Regional Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA)

2. County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)

3. Zone 3 Water Advisory Board

4. Other

8. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Dean Castelleno, Patty Welsh, Robert Brenett, Joy Danley, Chris Guillen, Russ Sheppel, No Name Provided, Cheryl Storton, Melissa Boggs, Catharine Judge, Penny Camuses, Gigi, Ray Burnell, Lori Rellano, Peggy Boydoi, Barbara Lemoine, Kevin Thorton, No Name Provided, Carin R'Ourke, No Name Provided. No further public comments were received. Mayor Ray Russom summarized public comments for staff to consider.

9. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion.

Staff responded to questions from Council on Item 9.d.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Jim McNamara, Peter Williamson. No further public comments were received. City Manager Downing responded to comments from the public.

City Manager Downing and Planning Manager Perez responded to questions from Council on Item 9.g.

Council made comments on Item 9.d., 9.f., and 9.g.

Council Member Secrest made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mayor Ray Russom seconded. After brief discussion, Council Member Secrest withdrew the motion.

Council Member Loe requested that Item 9.g. be pulled for separate consideration.

Moved by Council Member Guthrie
Seconded by Council Member Secrest
Approve Consent Agenda Items 9.a. through 9.f., with the exception of Item 9.g. with the recommended courses of action.

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2026
PAGE 6
6 Item 9.a.

AYES (5): Council Member Guthrie, Council Member Secrest, Council Member Loe, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, and Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (5 to 0)

9.a Approval of Minutes
Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 10, 2026, as submitted.

9.b Cash Disbursement Ratification
Reviewed and ratified the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of February 16 through February 28, 2026.

9.c 2026 Omnibus Municipal Code Cleanup Ordinance
1) Adopted an Ordinance amending Section 1.01.010 of Title 1 (General Provisions), and various Sections of Chapter 13.26 of Title 13 (Encroachment Permits) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC); and
2) Found that the Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because these efforts have no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378).). Alternatively, the organizational changes made by the amendments to Title 1, and Title 13 of the AGMC by this Ordinance are not a project under CEQA because such changes constitute organizational or administrative activities of a government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(5).)

9.d Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
Received and filed the Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update.

9.e 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report
1) Reviewed and accepted the 2025 General Plan Annual Report (the “Annual Report” or “Report”) and directed staff to forward the Report to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation and the Department of Housing and Community Development; and 2) Found that the request is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5).

9.f Community Service Grant Program Allocations for Fiscal Year 2025-26 1) Adopted a Resolution approving the Arroyo Grande Community Service Grant Program (CSGP) projects for Fiscal Year 2025-26; and
2) Found that adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.) Further, adoption of the Resolution is not a project pursuant to State

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2026
PAGE 7
7 Item 9.a.

CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(5) as an organizational or administrative activity of government that has no anticipated direct or indirect physical environmental impacts.

9.g General Plan Update Progress Report – March 2026
Council discussion ensued regarding a focus on the Circulation Element during the General Plan Update process. Staff responded to questions from Council.

Council Member Loe made a motion to receive and file a progress report on the Comprehensive General Plan Update with the addition of a workshop to coincide with the June public review with an included focus on the circulation element and to provide direction to staff to consider a comprehensive update of the circulation element after the General Plan is approved. The motion was not seconded.

Council discussion ensued and Council Member Loe modified her motion.

Moved by Council Member Loe
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia
Receive and file a progress report on the Comprehensive General Plan Update with the addition of a workshop to coincide with the June public review with an included focus on the circulation element.

AYES (2): Council Member Loe, and Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, NOES (3): Council Member Guthrie, Council Member Secrest, and Mayor Ray Russom Failed (2 to 3)
Moved by Council Member Guthrie
Seconded by Mayor Ray Russom
Receive and file a progress report on the Comprehensive General Plan Update.

AYES (5): Council Member Guthrie, Mayor Ray Russom, Council Member Secrest, and Council Member Loe, and Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia
Passed (5 to 0)

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.a Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust This item was continued in Item 5 to a date certain of April 14, 2026.

Mayor Ray Russom called for a brief break at 7:54 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:00 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2026
PAGE 8
8 Item 9.a.

10.b Amendments to Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to Implement Housing Element Programs
Planning Manager Perez presented the Item.

Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Upon hearing no public comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing.

Moved by Council Member Guthrie
Seconded by Council Member Secrest
1) Introduce an Ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING SECTION 1.01.010 OF TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), AND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 13.26 OF TITLE 13 (ENCROACHMENT PERMITS) OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE"; and 2) Find that the Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085.

AYES (5): Council Member Guthrie, Council Member Secrest, Council Member Loe, Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, and Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (5 to 0)

11. BUSINESS ITEMS

11.a Police Department 2025 Annual Activity Report
Chief Culver presented the Item and responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.

Council expressed appreciation for staff and the report, and commented regarding comparing calls for service for the two years prior.

No action was taken on this item. The report was received and filed.

12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ray Russom adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
_________________________
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
_________________________
Jessica Matson, City Clerk

Item 9.b.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Director of Administrative Services BY: Megan Schotborgh, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Cash Disbursement Ratification
DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Review and ratify the attached listing of cash disbursements for the period of March 1 through March 15, 2026.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There is a $3,094,860.45 fiscal impact for the period of March 1 through March 15, 2026, that includes the following items:
 Accounts Payable Checks $2,549,105.92
 Payroll & Benefit Checks $545,754.53
BACKGROUND:

Cash disbursements are made weekly based on the submission of all required documents supporting the invoices submitted for payment. Prior to payment, Administrative Services staff review all disbursement documents to ensure that they meet the approval requirements adopted in the Municipal Code and the City’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The attached listing represents the cash disbursements required for normal and usual operations during the period. The disbursements are accounted for in the FY 2025-26 budget.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Approve staff’s recommendation;

2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Cash Disbursement Ratification
April 14, 2026

ADVANTAGES:
 The Administrative Services Department monitors payments of invoices for accountability, accuracy, and completeness using standards approved by the City Council.
 Invoices are paid in a timely manner to establish goodwill with merchants.  Discounts are taken where applicable.

DISADVANTAGES:

There are no disadvantages identified in this recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Ratifying the cash disbursements is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. March 1 through March 15, 2026 – Accounts Payable Check Register

2. March 6, 2026 – Payroll & Benefit Check Registers

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/01/2026 09:16
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:03012026TO 03152026 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
100 1111 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - FCFA
HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCE CTR 49.41
10004000 4050 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
ONE TIME PAY REFUND 1,555.00
10004000 4203 PARKING FINES
SLO COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER 1,267.00
10004000 4605 SPEC.INT.CLASSES
ANDERSON, JOYCE 80.00
CUTRELL, CARL 62.50
GALLAGHER, GINETTE 80.00
MOUSTIRATS, MIRIAM 130.00
ONE TIME PAY 240.00
THOMAS, LILIANA 130.00
10014003 5304 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 33,415.10
10014099 5132 DENTAL INSURANCE
DELTA DENTAL 2,518.72
10014099 5133 VISION INSURANCE
VISION SERVICE PLAN 604.54
10014101 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
ROBESON, WILLIAM 68.40
10014101 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS INC 5,500.00
10014101 5501 TRAVEL/CONFERENCE/TRAINING
DOWNING, MATTHEW 863.50
10014110 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
LIEBERT, CASSIDY, WHITMORE 900.00
10014120 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 191.71
10014120 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM LLP 1,000.00
ROBERT HALF 3,629.54
10014140 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
CIO SOLUTIONS LP 6,516.23
EVERON LLC 3,790.41
10014140 5607 MAINTENANCE-COMPUTER SOFTWARE
CIO SOLUTIONS LP 7,119.00
10014140 5702 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
IMPRIVATA INC 2,028.18
10014145 5147 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCE CTR 197.64
10014145 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
AK & COMPANY 2,500.00
10014145 5401 UTILITIES
SOCALGAS 219.28
SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 149.76
10014145 5403 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AT&T 30.26
10014145 5553 RENT-BUILDINGS & LAND
ATLAS PERFORMANCE INDUSTRIES I 2,163.00
10024130 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
MINTIER HARNISH LP 83,269.63
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/01/2026 09:16
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:03012026TO 03152026 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
10024160 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
JAS PACIFIC 27,312.32
10024160 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 51.93
10034201 5201 SUPPLIES-OFFICE
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 42.09
10034201 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
ATC SEQUOIA LLC 142.57
EVERBRIDGE INC 4,031.42
VITAL RECORDS CONTROL 124.05
10034201 5315 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
PACIFIC CENTRAL COAST HEALTH 488.00
10034201 5321 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
ANIMAL SERVICES 44,635.25
10034201 5403 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AT&T 307.99
10034201 5501 TRAVEL/CONFERENCE/TRAINING
PIERCE, GREGORY 525.00
10034201 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
BOB'S EXPRESS WASH 39.00
10034201 5604 MAINTENANCE-BUILDINGS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 135.99
10034201 5605 MAINTENANCE-GROUNDS
MACEDO, JORGE 140.00
10034201 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 356.88
10034201 6301 VEHICLES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 188.00
10034203 5272 PROTECTIVE/SAFETY CLOTHING
ADAMSON INDUSTRIES, INC 284.43
SKAGGS PUBLIC SAFETY UNIFORMS 1,236.39
10034203 5501 TRAVEL/CONFERENCE/TRAINING
DOHERTY, STEPHEN 750.00
ESPARZA, ELI 75.00
10034203 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
BOB'S EXPRESS WASH 156.00
SANTA MARIA TIRE, INC 1,678.09
10034203 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 2,940.07
10034204 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
FLEXTG LLC 182.77
OFFICE1 110.31
PHOENIX GROUP 265.28
TRANSUNION RISK 100.00
10034204 5324 FORENSIC MANDATE SERVICES
SART PROGRAM 801.00
10034204 5501 TRAVEL/CONFERENCE/TRAINING
BURNS, JEREMY 225.00
ESPARZA, ELIA 750.00
RAMIREZ, TIMOTHY 150.00
10034204 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1,104.86
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/01/2026 09:16
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:03012026TO 03152026 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
BOB'S EXPRESS WASH 104.00
MULLAHEY FORD 255.27
10034204 5606 MAINTENANCE-RADIO COMM.

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC 168.55
10034204 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 1,215.85
10044420 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
LOUIE'S KUSTOMS INC 500.00
10044420 5605 MAINTENANCE-GROUNDS
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD 281.82
10044420 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 1,383.16
10044421 5602 MAINTENANCE-OFFICE EQUIPMENT
DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SVCS 459.21
OFFICE1 107.11
10044424 5251 SUPPLIES-RECREATION CLASSES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 49.98
10044424 5351 SERVICES-CLASSES
BEATTY, IRINA 512.00
CINOWALT, KATHLEEN J 60.00
CROSS, SHIRLEY J 792.00
CUDDY, GAYLE 473.20
DIGIOIA, DEE 403.20
FISSELL, MARLENE 371.00
FIVE CITIES DUPLICATE BRIDGE 1,648.50
GABEL, MARY JO 1,421.00
HONEYCUTT, MADISON 624.00
KELLER, KAYLYN 224.00
LEONG, PRINCESS 192.00
MANGIARDI, HEIDY 1,816.71
MAULE, TAMMY L CROSS 777.00
NELSON, NICCOLA 268.80
SNODGRASS, PAMELA C 2,912.00
TENNIS TIME ACADEMY LLC 1,032.00
10044424 5352 SERVICES-LEAGUES
JOHNSTON, JACOB 338.00
JUAREZ, SR, LARRY 300.00
MENDOZA, JESSE DAVID 169.00
MERINO, JOCELYN DIAZ 118.30
10044424 5353 SERVICES-EVENTS
PHANTOM PEAKS MEDIA LLC 200.00
10054301 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
BOB'S EXPRESS WASH 13.00
10054301 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 156.06
10054305 5273 SMALL TOOLS
TCA TOOLS INC 239.58
10054307 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 96.42
10054307 5402 POWER
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 20,995.16
10054308 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/01/2026 09:16
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:03012026TO 03152026 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
JD ELECTRIC 500.00
10054308 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
LOUIE'S KUSTOMS INC 500.00
10054308 5604 MAINTENANCE-BUILDINGS
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD 224.37
10054308 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 405.80
10054330 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
LOUIE'S KUSTOMS INC 500.00
10054330 5605 MAINTENANCE-GROUNDS
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD 41.69
10054330 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 256.23
110 2105 SOCIAL SECURITY
UNITED STATES TREASURY 616.98
110 2110 DENTAL INSURANCE
DELTA DENTAL 8,264.55
110 2113 LIFE INSURANCE
STANDARD INSURANCE CO 3,168.87
110 2114 GARNISHMENTS
SLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT 295.50
110 2117 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PLAN ID 1 2,187.48
ICMA RETIREMENT CORP, PLAN ID 27,050.24
110 2119 VISION INSURANCE
VISION SERVICE PLAN 2,133.60
22064303 5255 SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
HEACOCK TRAILERS 250.82
22064303 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
LOUIE'S KUSTOMS INC 509.39
22064303 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 1,199.61
22064303 5613 MAINTENANCE-STREETS & BRIDGES
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD 17.91
HEACOCK TRAILERS 19.58
22654306 5554 REBATES
ONE TIME PAY 200.00
24014150 5301 ADVERTISING
COMMUNE COMMUNICATIONS CORP 16,600.00
26014565 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5 CITIES HOMELESS COALITION 93,027.53
27134202 5255 SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 7,797.17
35055486 7001 CONSTRUCTION
GARING TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES INC 7,720.00
35055488 7001 CONSTRUCTION
JD ELECTRIC 540.00
35055638 7001 CONSTRUCTION
PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC 51,254.50
35055638 7701 CONCEPT STUDIES
PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC 7,256.25
35055658 7001 CONSTRUCTION
Attachment 1

City of Arroyo Grande

INV GROUP PUBLICATION LIST
Report generated: 04/01/2026 09:16
User: mschotborgh
Program ID: appdwarr

INV GROUP RANGE:03012026TO 03152026 DATES: 07/01/25 TO 06/30/26

ACCOUNT

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
V. LOPEZ JR & SONS G.E.C. INC 60,281.06
35055679 7001 CONSTRUCTION
FILIPPIN ENGINEERING 71,859.30
35055697 7001 CONSTRUCTION
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 22.80
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC 519.00
61254610 5148 BOOT ALLOWANCE
CARR'S BOOTS & WESTERN 195.74
61254610 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM LLP 1,000.00
61254610 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
ARROYO GRANDE CHEVROLET 4,840.00
61254610 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 252.86
640 2301 DEPOSIT RENTERS
ONE TIME PAY REFUND 1,165.92
64054710 5303 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM LLP 1,000.00
SIMPSON, WILLIAM R 150.00
64054710 5575 INSURANCE CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS
DOWNING, MATTHEW 400.15
WHITE BRENNER LLP 3,086.68
64054712 5207 SUPPLIES-WATER METERS
AQUA-METRIC SALES CO 6,399.51
64054712 5255 SPECIAL DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD 138.04
64054712 5273 SMALL TOOLS
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD 57.61
MINER'S ACE HARDWARE, INC 10.86
64054712 5501 TRAVEL/CONFERENCE/TRAINING
SIMPSON, BLAKE 145.73
SWRCB-DWOCP 120.00
64054712 5601 MAINTENANCE-VEHICLES
BOB'S EXPRESS WASH 42.00
64054712 5608 GAS & OIL
JB DEWAR, INC 1,315.40
64054712 5610 MAINTENANCE-LINES & PUMPS
BRISCO MILL & LUMBER YARD 46.24
MIER BROS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS 277.32
OUTSIDE THE BOX ENGINEERING 520.09
STREATOR PIPE & SUPPLY 67.74
64055978 7001 CONSTRUCTION
BAKER, INC, R 212,384.85
64154750 5612 MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS-LOPEZ
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 1,426,491.50
760 2304 DEPOSITS-SEWER SVC CHG-S.D.

SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 231,026.07
760 2305 DEPOSIT-SEWER HOOKUPS-S.D.

SOUTH SLO COUNTY SANIT DIST 2,475.00
TOTAL 2,549,105.92
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Megan Schotborgh **
Attachment 1

.

General Fund 480,452.75 5101 Salaries Full time 274,063.11 Streets Fund 21,679.14 5101 Volunteer Employee Retirement - Sewer Fund 16,944.43 5102 Salaries Part-Time - PPT 5,360.75 Water Fund 26,678.21 5103 Salaries Part-Time - TPT 7,512.31 545,754.53 5105 Salaries OverTime 22,132.42
5106 Salaries Strike Team OT -
5107 Salaries Standby 2,275.72
5108 Holiday Pay 32,087.59
5109 Sick Pay 4,563.33
Administrative Services - 5110 Annual Leave Buyback -
Information Services - 5111 Vacation Buyback -
Community Development - 5112 Sick Leave Buyback -
Police 18,980.18 5113 Vacation Pay 6,535.96
Public Works - Maintenance 1,482.34 5114 Comp Pay 4,841.27 Public Works - Enterprise 1,669.90 5115 Annual Leave Pay 13,827.11 Recreation - Administration - 5116 Salaries - Police FTO 236.34 Recreation - Special Events - 5121 PERS Retirement 42,533.48 22,132.42 5122 Social Security 30,198.40
5123 PARS Retirement 200.44
5126 State Disability Ins. 5,130.82
5127 Deferred Compensation 2,187.48
5131 Health Insurance 59,636.87
5132 Dental Insurance 2,991.36
5133 Vision Insurance 774.85
5134 Life Insurance 355.65
5135 Long Term Disability 402.82
5137 Leave Payouts 25,096.73
5142 Unemployment Insurance -
5143 Uniform Allowance 134.56
5144 Car Allowance 1,178.00
5146 Council Expense -
5147 Employee Assistance -
5148 Boot Allowance -
5149 Motor Pay 22.16
5150 Bi-Lingual Pay 175.00
5151 Cell Phone Allowance 1,300.00
545,754.53
OVERTIME BY DEPARTMENT:

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE

DEPARTMENTAL LABOR DISTRIBUTION

PAY PERIOD
02/13/2026-02/26/2026
3/6/2026

BY FUND BY ACCOUNT
Attachment 2

Item 9.c.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Valentine, Director of Administrative Services BY: Megan Schotborgh, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Statement of Investment Deposits for February 2026 DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the attached report listing investment deposits of the City of Arroyo Grande as of February 28, 2026, as required by Government Code Section 53646(b).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There is no funding impact on the City related to these reports. However, the City does receive interest revenue based on the interest rate of the investments. Little to no future staff time is projected.

BACKGROUND:

The Administrative Services department has historically submitted to the City Council a monthly report providing the following information:

1. Type of investment.

2. Financial institution (bank, savings and loan, broker, etc.).

3. Date of maturity.

4. Principal amount.

5. Rate of interest.

6. Current market value for all securities having a maturity of more than 12 months.

7. Relationship of the monthly report to the annual statement of investment policy.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

This report represents the City’s investments as of February 28, 2026, and includes all investments managed by the City. As of February 28, 2026, the investment portfolio complied with all State laws and the City’s investment policy.

Item 9.c.

City Council
Statement of Investment Deposits for February 2026
April 14, 2026

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Approve staff’s recommendation to receive and file the attached report listing the investment deposits;

2. Do not approve staff’s recommendation; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City. Investments are undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio.

DISADVANTAGES:

Some level of risk is present in any investment transaction. Losses could be incurred due to market price changes, technical cash flow complications such as the need to withdraw a non-negotiable Time Certificate of Deposit early, or even the default of an issuer. To minimize such risks, diversification of the investment portfolio by institution and by investment instruments are being used as much as is practical and prudent.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Statement of Investment Deposits is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Portfolio Summary: February 28, 2026

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Portfolio Summary
February 28, 2026
Investments Principal Value
Current Market
Value
Interest
Rate Date of Purchase Term Maturity Date
% of
Portfolio
Local Agency Investment Fund $ 9,685,006.55 $ 9,685,006.55 3.871% 39.493% Certificates of Deposit
Pacific Premier Bank 249,000.00 249,000.00 3.680% February 21, 2026 12 mos February 21, 2027 1.011% Live Oak Banking Company Inc 249,000.00 249,000.00 3.150% May 26, 2022 48 mos May 26, 2026 1.011% UBS Bank USA 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.900% July 21, 2021 60 mos July 21, 2026 1.011% Toyota Financial Savings Bank 248,000.00 248,000.00 0.950% July 22, 2021 60 mos July 22, 2026 1.007% Chartway Federal Credit Union 248,000.00 248,000.00 5.250% July 28, 2023 60 mos July 28, 2026 1.007% California Credit Union Glendale 243,000.00 243,000.00 5.450% October 26, 2023 36 mos October 26, 2026 0.987% Alliant Credit Union 248,000.00 248,000.00 5.500% November 15, 2023 36 mos November 16, 2026 1.007% Capital One Bank USA 248,000.00 248,000.00 1.250% December 8, 2021 60 mos December 8, 2026 1.007% Bank United NA 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.350% December 8, 2021 60 mos December 8, 2026 1.011% Paragon Bank TN 245,000.00 245,000.00 4.050% March 19, 2025 24 mos March 19, 2027 0.995% Discover Bank 246,000.00 246,000.00 3.200% May 18, 2022 60 mos May 19, 2027 0.999% United Teletech Financial Credit Union 248,000.00 248,000.00 5.100% November 8, 2023 48 mos November 8, 2027 1.007% Medallion Bank UT 249,000.00 249,000.00 4.000% March 14, 2025 36 mos March 14, 2028 1.011% Amerant Bank NA 245,000.00 245,000.00 4.050% March 28, 2025 36 mos March 28, 2028 0.995% Freedom Northwest Credit Union 249,000.00 249,000.00 4.000% March 28, 2025 36 mos March 28, 2028 1.011% Morgan Stanley Bank 244,000.00 244,000.00 4.650% April 6, 2023 60 mos April 6, 2028 0.991% Maine Savings Federal Credit Union 249,000.00 249,000.00 4.800% July 21, 2023 60 mos July 21, 2028 1.011% SkyOneFederal Credit Union 249,000.00 249,000.00 3.900% October 25, 2024 48 mos October 25, 2028 1.011% Merrick Bank UT 249,000.00 249,000.00 4.000% March 19, 2025 48 mos March 19, 2029 1.011% Bank Hapoalim BM New York 244,000.00 244,000.00 4.500% May 21, 2024 60 mos May 21, 2029 0.991% Morgan Stanley Private Bank 244,000.00 244,000.00 4.650% May 22, 2024 60 mos May 22, 2029 0.901% Goldman Sachs Bank USA 245,000.00 245,000.00 4.000% March 18, 2025 60 mos March 18, 2030 0.905% BMW Bank NA Salt Lake 245,000.00 245,000.00 4.000% May 16, 2025 48 mos May 16, 2029 0.995% Texas Exchange Bank Crowley 249,000.00 249,000.00 4.000% May 23, 2025 48 mos May 23, 2029 1.011% Security First Bk Lincoln Neb 245,000.00 245,000.00 3.950% July 3, 2025 48 mos July 3, 2030 0.995% Synchrony Bank 245,000.00 245,000.00 3.600% October 24, 2025 60 mos October 24, 2030 0.995% Institution for Svgs Newbury 249,000.00 249,000.00 3.650% October 28, 2025 60 mos October 28, 2030 1.011% Total Certificates of Deposit 6,670,000.00 6,670,000.00 26.905% Attachment 1

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Portfolio Summary
February 28, 2026
Investments Principal Value
Current Market
Value
Interest
Rate Date of Purchase Term Maturity Date
% of
Portfolio
Agency Bonds
Federal Home Loan Bank 999,500.00 999,340.00 0.800% March 17, 2021 60 mos March 10, 2026 4.058% Federal Home Loan Bank 994,396.00 987,020.00 2.400% March 17, 2021 72 mos March 29, 2027 4.037% Federal Home Loan Bank 500,000.00 498,025.00 3.375% May 17, 2022 60 mos May 17, 2027 2.030% Federal Agriculture Mortgage Corp 495,174.00 500,570.00 3.580% October 28, 2024 36 mos October 7, 2027 2.010% Federal Agriculture Mortgage Corp 2,029,036.00 2,074,040.00 4.650% May 17, 2024 60 mos April 26, 2029 8.237% Total Agency Bonds 5,018,106.00 5,058,995.00 20.372%
Municipal Bonds
California State GO Various Purp Bond $ 491,810.00 $ 499,475.00 2.500% May 12, 2022 47 mos April 1, 2026 1.997% California State Taxable GO Unlimited 1,256,116.00 1,339,410.40 3.500% November 1, 2023 53 mos April 1, 2028 5.100% California State Taxable GO Unlimited 525,935.25 554,317.25 2.500% December 19, 2024 57 mos October 1, 2029 2.135% Total Municipal Bonds 2,273,861.25 2,393,202.65 9.232%
Treasury Obligations
U.S. Treasury Z-2026 Series 984,728.00 992,720.00 1.100% December 6, 2021 53 mos May 31, 2026 3.998% Total Treasury Obligations 984,728.00 992,720.00 3.998% TOTAL INVESTMENTS $ 24,631,701.80 $ 24,799,924.20 100.000% Attachment 1

Item 9.d.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Sheridan Bohlken, Director of Recreation Services SUBJECT: Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Report, Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget and Resolution of Intention to Levy DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve Annual Assessment Report and Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget; 2) Adopt a Resolution of Intention declaring the intention to continue the Arroyo Grande Business Improvement District, to continue the basis for and to levy the assessments for the District, and to set a date for the public hearing on the District and the assessment for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year; and
3) Set the date for a public hearing for April 28, 2026, in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 36534; and
4) Find that the recommended actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because these efforts have no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Based on anticipated year-end results, the assessments expected to be collected total approximately $298,700 for FY 2025-26. The Preliminary Budget for FY 2026-27 includes total expenditures of $504,350, exceeding projected revenues and reflecting a strategic use of available fund balance to support continued investment in destination marketing and authorized expanded uses approved in August 20251.

The Preliminary FY 2026-27 budget incorporates targeted adjustments and right-sizing, including the following:

1 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=15706

Item 9.d.

City Council
Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Report, Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget and Resolution of Intention to Levy
April 14, 2026

Table 1: Proposed Changes to AGTBID FY 2026-27 Budget
Specifically, the FY 2026-27 budget incorporates a total decrease of $17,500. This includes: $27,500 decrease in marketing services, a $2,500 decrease in promotional product, an increase in travel and trade show participation to support expanded engagement in familiarization (FAM) tours, press trips, and convention opportunities, as well as a $10,000 increase in influencer marketing to enhance digital reach and visibility.

Consistent with prior years, the budget also includes $50,000 for City administrative services. The planned use of fund balance allows for the implementation of strategic initiatives and destination improvements while aligning expenditures with program priorities and long-term tourism development goals.

BACKGROUND:

The AGTBID was established in 2013 to promote Arroyo Grande as a visitor destination and support the local economy through increased overnight stays. The district is funded through a two percent (2%) assessment applied to lodging stays within the City, including short-term vacation rentals of less than 30 days. Assessment funding, with oversight by the AGTBID Board and City Council, may be used to support destination promotion, as well as beautification and tourism-related infrastructure that enhance the visitor experience per expanded uses approved by City Council on July 22, 20252.

In September 20253, the annual reporting process was refined to distinguish the Annual Marketing Report, which focuses on performance outcomes, from the Annual Assessment Report, which fulfills statutory requirements pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code §365334 Per these mandates, the City Council must adopt a Resolution of Intention to levy the assessment (Attachment 1), with receipt of the Annual Assessment Report (Attachment 2) recommended by the AGTBID Advisory Board outlining improvements, activities, and estimated costs.

2 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=15379 3 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=16000 4https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&sectionNum=36533# :~:text=(a)%20The%20advisory%20board%20shall,business%20for%20that%20fiscal%20year Account Description
Current
FY 2025-26
Proposed
FY 2026-27 Variance
Advertising Marketing Services $ 250,000 $ 222,500 $(27,500) Advertising Promotional Product $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $ (2,500) Advertising Travel and Trade Shows $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 2,500 Public Relations Influencers $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 Total Decrease $(17,500)

Item 9.d.

City Council
Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Report, Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget and Resolution of Intention to Levy
April 14, 2026

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The Annual Assessment Report provides the required framework to continue the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (AGTBID) and levy annual assessments in accordance with the California Streets and Highways Code. The AGTBID Advisory Board reviewed and recommended approval of the Annual Assessment Report and Preliminary FY 2026–27 Budget to the City Council on March 25, 20265.

The report confirms:
• No changes to district boundaries
• Authorized uses of funds
• Proposed FY 2026–27 budget
• Assessment methodology
• Surplus and deficit projections
• Contributions other than assessments
The report outlines authorized uses, including tourism promotion, event sponsorships, and destination-enhancing infrastructure improvements, and incorporates the Preliminary FY 2026–27 budget to support these activities. Total proposed expenditures are $504,350, reflecting a $17,500 decrease from the prior year. With anticipated revenues of $298,700, the remaining balance will be funded through available fund balance, resulting in an estimated ending balance of $36,913. The use of fund balance reflects a strategic approach to deploying accumulated resources while maintaining near-term fiscal stability; however, continued expenditures at this level will require corresponding revenue growth or future budget adjustments to maintain fiscal sustainability.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Approve the Annual Assessment Report, Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget and adopt the Resolution of Intention to levy the FY 2026-27 AGTBID Assessment; or

2. Approve the Annual Assessment Report with modifications to the Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget, and Adopt the Resolution of Intention to levy the FY 2026-27 AGTBID assessment; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The AGTBID provides a stable and reliable funding source that supports ongoing destination marketing efforts, helping to strengthen local economic activity. It also ensures continuity of programs while maintaining compliance with applicable statutory requirements.

5 https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=18170

Item 9.d.

City Council
Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Report, Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget and Resolution of Intention to Levy
April 14, 2026

DISADVANTAGES:

The required assessment may be perceived by businesses as an added financial obligation, despite being visitor-generated, and may also be viewed by visitors as a fee imposed by the business rather than collected for AGTBID purposes. Additionally, continuation of the district requires ongoing administrative coordination and staff resources from the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessment

2. Annual Assessment Report and Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO

CONTINUE THE ARROYO GRANDE TOURISM BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO CONTINUE THE BASIS

FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE

DISTRICT, AND TO SET A DATE FOR THE PUBLIC

HEARING ON THE DISTRICT AND THE ASSESSMENT
FOR THE 2026-27 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (“PBIAL”), sections 36500 et seq. of the Streets and Highway Code, authorizes cities to establish business improvement districts for several purposes, one of which is promotion of tourism; and
WHEREAS, the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District was established in May 2013 and incorporated into the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”) under Chapter 3.46; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of Streets and Highways Code Section 36530 and AGMC Section 3.46.100, the City Council appointed an Advisory Board to provide oversight, guidance, and recommendations regarding the use of the assessment funds; and
WHEREAS, the AGMC and the PBIAL require the Advisory Board to prepare and submit an annual report (“Annual Report”) stating proposed changes, improvements and activities for the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it will not result in a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060 (c)(2) and (3), 15378); and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the Advisory Board approved the Annual Assessment Report; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Board Annual Assessment Report was filed and approved by the Arroyo Grande City Council on April 14, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows:

1. All recitals set forth above, are true, correct and incorporated herein.

2. The City Council hereby declares its intention to continue the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (“District”) in accordance with AGMC Chapter 3.46 and Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq. and to levy assessments for fiscal year 2026-27.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2

3. The Annual Assessment Report is on file with the City Clerk and contains a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for FY 2026-27. No changes to the District boundaries are proposed, and the report includes the estimated cost of providing improvements and activities for fiscal year 2026- 27. The assessment is not proposed to be increased.

4. The boundaries of the District are the boundaries of the City of Arroyo Grande.

5. The assessment levied by the District shall be used for activities and programs promoting lodging businesses in the District through the promotion and tourism infrastructure with a useful life of 5 years or more of scenic, recreational, cultural, and other attractions in the District which promote Arroyo Grande as a tourist destination, and as further set forth in ACMG Section 3.46.030.

6. The assessment is proposed to be levied on all “lodging” businesses in the District, as that term is defined in AGMC section 3.46.020, and allocated by the City of Arroyo Grande.

7. The assessment shall be based upon two percent (2%) of the rent charged by the operator per occupied room per night for all transient occupancies and shall be collected quarterly.

8. New lodging businesses shall not be exempt from immediate assessment.

9. A public hearing, held pursuant to AGMC Chapter 3.46 and Streets and Highways Code Section 36535, to allow for comments and to receive written and oral protests on the District and proposed assessment, is hereby set for 6:00 p.m., Tuesday April 28, 2026, before the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande at the City Council Chambers at 215 E. Branch St., Arroyo Grande, CA.

10.At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the continuation of the District, and the levy of the proposed assessment for fiscal year 2026-27 will be heard. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. However, only written protests will be considered in determining if there is a majority protest. The form and manner of protests shall comply with Streets and Highways Code Sections 36524 and 36525.

11.Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity of defect to which objection is made. Written protests must be received by the City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande before the close of the public hearing scheduled herein and may delivered or mailed to the City Clerk, City of Arroyo Grande, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3
the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a written description of the business in which the person signing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Arroyo Grande as the owner of a business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business.

12.If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of lodging businesses within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, no further proceedings to impose the fiscal year 2026-27 assessment shall occur. New proceedings to continue the District and to impose the annual assessment shall not be undertaken again for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council.

13.The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice as required by AGMC Chapter 3.46 and Streets and Highways Code Section 36534. The City Clerk shall give notice of the public hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City no less than seven (7) days before the public hearing.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 14 th day of April, 2026.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR

ARROYO GRANDE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
This report is prepared in compliance with California Streets and Highways Code section 36533 for the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (the “District”) for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Section 1. Changes. There are no proposed changes to the boundaries of the District.

Section 2. Authorized Uses. The improvements and activities (the “Authorized Uses”) to be provided in Fiscal Year 2026-27 include:
 Improvements, including the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:
o Parking facilities, benches, trash receptacle, street lighting, decorations including public art and cultural enhancements and decorations, parks, and fountains; and
o Activities which benefit businesses located and operating within the District.  Promotion and furnishing of, but not limited to, the following activities:
o Promotion of public events which benefit businesses within the District and which take place on or in public spaces within the District; and o Furnishing of music in any public place within the District; and o Promotion of tourism within the District.

Section 3. Budget. The estimated costs of providing the Authorized Uses for Fiscal Year 2026- 27 is included in the budget attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4. Method and Basis of the Assessment. The assessment is two percent (2%) of the rent charged by the operator per occupied room per night for all transient occupancies.

Assessments are collected quarterly.

Section 5. Surplus/Deficit Revenues. The amounts or any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from the previous fiscal year are included in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.

Section 6. Contributions. There are no contributions from any other sources to be made other than the assessments of the District.

EXHIBIT “A”
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BUDGET
Beginning Fund Balance $ 436,489 $ 438,184 $ 383,013 $ 383,013 $ 241,813 FY 2023-24
Actuals
FY 2024-25
Actuals
FY 2025-26
Budget
FY 2025-26
Expected to
Complete
FY 2026-27
Proposed
Budget
TBID Assessments $ 281,764 $ 288,366 $ 327,848 $ 288,400 $ 298,700 Interest 17,990 19,366 750 750 750
Total Revenue $ 299,754 $ 307,731 $ 328,598 $ 289,150 $ 299,450 Expenditures
FY 2023-24
Actuals
FY 2024-25
Adopted
Budget
FY 2025-26
Proposed
Budget
FY 2025-26
Expected to
Complete
FY 2026-27
Proposed
Budget
Advertising
Marketing Services $ 218,340 $ 248,056 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 222,500 Photo/Video Assets 1,890 7,750 25,000 25,000 25,000
Promotional Product 600 - 5,000 5,000 2,500
Website - - - - -
Travel and Trade Shows - 2,469 7,500 7,500 10,000
Coop Advertising 14,400 33,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Sub-total Advertising $ 235,230 $ 291,275 $ 337,500 $ 337,500 $ 310,000 Contractual Services
Short-term compliance $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 Chamber - Contract admin. - - - - -
Sub-total Contractual Services $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 $ 11,350 Membership & Subscriptions
CCTC $ 475 $ 475 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Sub-total Membership & Subs. $ 475 $ 475 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Public Relations
Event Sponsorships 1,000 9,799 50,000 1,000 50,000
Influencers - - 10,000 10,000 20,000
Sub-total Public Relations $ 1,000 $ 9,799 $ 60,000 $ 11,000 $ 70,000 Services & Supplies
City - administrative $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ 50,000 Supplies/Domains - - 2,500 - 2,500
Vacation rental code compliance 5,004 5,004 5,000 5,000 - Sub-total Services & Supplies $ 50,004 $ 50,004 $ 52,500 $ 50,000 $ 52,500 Destination Improvements & Activities
Public art and beautification $ - $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 Infrastructure improvements - - 20,000 20,000 20,000
Special event-supporting infrastructure - - 15,000 - 15,000 Sub-total Destination Improvements & Activities $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ 20,000 $ 60,000 Total Expenditures $ 298,059 $ 362,903 $ 521,850 $ 430,350 $ 504,350 Ending Fund Balance $ 438,184 $ 383,013 $ 189,761 $ 241,813 $ 36,913 Revenue

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 9.d – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Assessment Report, Preliminary FY 2026-27 Budget and Resolution of Intention to Levy
DATE: April 13, 2026
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced Item.

Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works
Director of Recreation Services
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc

From: Jared Worthen
To: public comment; Sheridan Bohlken; Matt Downing
Subject: Item 9(d). | FY 2026-27 TBID Budget – Investing in What Lasts Date: Saturday, April 11, 2026 1:58:53 PM
Dear Mayor Ray Russom and City Council Members,
I'm writing regarding Item 9.d. as a resident, a former TBID member, and someone who genuinely believes Arroyo Grande's best days as a destination are still ahead of us. I support continuing the district and appreciate the work of the Advisory Board.

I'd like to offer a perspective on how we could use this moment to think bigger.

The Opportunity In Front of Us:

The TBID fund balance has drawn down from $438,000 to a projected $37,000. Much of that reflects years of operating under a narrower mandate before infrastructure spending was authorized. That context matters. But it also means we're approaching near-zero reserves at the exact moment we finally have the tools to build something lasting. How we spend what remains could shape the Village for a long time.

Marketing services remain the largest line item at $222,500. I'd encourage the Council to ask: What measurable outcomes is that spend producing, and how do they compare to the permanent assets we could build with a meaningful reallocation?
The Case for Infrastructure:

Research clearly shows that physical placemaking investments deliver outsized returns compared to marketing spend:

Main Street America data shows that every $1 invested in downtown physical improvements generates an average of $21.73 in new private investment and reinvestment.

The Urban Land Institute has documented that public art and placemaking investments increase adjacent property values and retail sales across multiple cities.

Project for Public Spaces research estimates that well-designed public spaces can increase retail sales in surrounding businesses by 20-40% through increased visitor dwell time.

Regional examples support this too. Paso Robles' downtown plaza investments preceded measurable hotel occupancy and sales tax growth and the plaza is now the anchor of their event calendar. Solvang's pedestrian lighting is consistently cited by visitors as a primary reason the town feels alive at night.

A social media campaign has a lifespan measured in days. String lights over Branch Street work every single night for twenty years.

Two Strategies Worth Exploring:

I'd ask the Council to challenge the TBID Advisory Board to bring back a bold infrastructure vision. Two directions worth considering:

Strategy A: The Big Swing — A Village Sound System

A downtown sound system with PA capability activates every event, every weekend, every evening stroll — passively, without ongoing spend. A system with emergency broadcast capability may also qualify for co-funding through Cal OES, FEMA Hazard Mitigation, or NEA Our Town grants, making TBID dollars go further.

Strategy B: A Portfolio of Small Bets
A cluster of lower-cost, high-visibility improvements that collectively transform the Village's atmosphere:

String lights over Branch Street and Olohan Alley
Olohan Alley activation: installing lighting, benches, and pavers to make it a destination, not just a cut-through
Public art installations—murals, sculpture, or rotating pieces—give visitors a reason to seek out the Village specifically
Wayfinding signage — directing visitors from parking into the Village core Decorative crosswalks
A gateway feature at Village entry points that tells visitors they've arrived somewhere worth being
These can be phased, grant-stacked, and deliver visible results quickly. Any one of them will be photographed and shared organically in ways no paid campaign can match.

A Direction Forward:

I'm not asking the Council to restructure the budget tonight.

Instead, direct staff and the TBID Advisory Board to come back with a specific infrastructure project ready to move. Not a study. Not a subcommittee. A real proposal with a real number. The sound system, the lights, the alley activation — pick one and let's get it done.

The mechanisms exist to act. The fund balance, while diminished, is still there.

What's been missing is a mandate to use it boldly. I'd encourage the Council to give that direction tonight.

Arroyo Grande's Village has something that can't be manufactured: authentic character, a walkable core, and a community that genuinely loves where it lives.

Let's invest boldly in it.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Jared Worthen
AG Resident & Former TBID Board Member.

Item 9.e.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Nicole Valentine, Director of Administrative Services
BY: Shannon Sweeney, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 1 Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27 DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27 funded by Senate Bill 1;
2) Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to submit the Resolution to the California Transportation Commission (CTC); and
3) Make findings that adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the adoption in itself has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.) IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The City’s allocation of Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) funding for FY 2026-27 is projected to be $514,790 (compared to $485,567 last year). This funding will be utilized to maintain the City’s streets. With this allocation, and the City’s Gas Tax funding of $557,355, the total funding available from the State for street and road maintenance is $1,072,145. A comprehensive 13-year expanded Pavement Management Plan (City Street repairs) and schedule that utilizes Measure E-24 Sales Tax funds was presented to the Council on April 22, 20251 and is the other main source of funding for City street repairs.

BACKGROUND:

On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed SB1, known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. SB1 increases gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees to address deferred maintenance on the State highway system and the local street and road system. These additional taxes are deposited by the State Controller into the Road

1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=43ec42d2-defc-44f6-ad47- 8a8c8b0bdea4&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=43&Tab=attachments

Item 9.e.

City Council
Senate Bill 1 Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27
April 14, 2026

Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A portion of this funding is apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties, including Arroyo Grande, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2032(h), and is to be used for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system.

Because SB1 emphasizes accountability and transparency in transportation funding, programming, and use of the funds, it is contingent on recipient cities and counties providing annual project reporting. Per SHC Section 2034(a)(1), prior to receiving any RMRA funding, cities and counties must submit a list of projects, adopted by Resolution, to be funded with the RMRA funds. The street segments proposed for full-depth reclamation treatment (completely rebuilt rather than just a surface treatment) using SB1 funding are most of Woodland Drive and all of Virginia Drive, as highlighted in Figure 1, and are to be included in the 2026 Street Repairs Project.

Figure 1: Proposed Street Repairs
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

SHC Section 2030(b) provides several types of projects and uses for RMRA funding that include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
 Safety Projects
 Railroad Grade Separations
 Complete Streets Components, including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in conjunction with any other allowable project

Item 9.e.

City Council
Senate Bill 1 Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27
April 14, 2026

 Traffic Control Devices
 Matching funds to State or federal funds for projects under this subdivision Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC Section 2030 if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80. The City of Arroyo Grande’s PCI is less than 80 (currently 55); therefore, this year’s RMRA funds must be spent on the transportation priorities listed above.

The City maintains its approximately 68 miles of streets through two mechanisms: (1) the City’s in-house street crew that provides daily efforts to keep streets functional, such as pothole repair, limited striping refresh, and small-scale asphalt patching, and (2) capital projects as part of its plan to provide larger-scale and long-term maintenance and repair.

Based on the SHC, the City can use its RMRA funds for either of these services.

Historically, the City has utilized its RMRA funds to augment the City’s plan for upcoming roadway rehabilitation projects as opposed to allocating the funds to the City’s in-house street maintenance program. This has been staff’s recommendation to the City Council due to uncertainties that would be created by a decline in RMRA revenues or a possible repeal of SB1. In these events, it would be less impactful to cut a specific long-term project or a portion thereof than to reduce the City’s in-house street maintenance program. Since the in-house street maintenance program addresses constant, immediate short- and medium-term street safety issues (e.g., debris removal, potholes, skin patching, restriping, stormwater and drainage repairs, etc.), funding must be readily available for those immediate needs.

In accordance with SHC Section 2036, the City must maintain its existing commitment to local funds for street purposes to remain eligible for allocations of RMRA funds. This commitment is generally referred to as Maintenance of Effort. To receive these RMRA funds, each year the City must expend from its General Fund for street purposes in an amount not less than the annual average of General Fund expenditures during fiscal years (FY) 2009-10, FY 2010-11, and FY 2011-12, as reported to the State Controller’s Office, pursuant to SHC Section 2151. For Arroyo Grande, the annual amount that must be spent from the General Fund for street purposes is $1,431,971. The City complies with this requirement using the General Fund and Local Sales Tax Funds.

Additionally, SHC Section 2034(a)(1) details the requirement that cities and counties must comply with when submitting their list of proposed projects to the CTC to be funded with RMRA funds each fiscal year. The requirements include:

1. Adopt the proposed project by Resolution at a regular public City Council meeting;

2. Describe the proposed project and its location;

3. Develop a proposed schedule for the project’s completion; and

4. Estimate the useful life of the improvement.

Item 9.e.

City Council
Senate Bill 1 Projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27
April 14, 2026

The State has provided an estimate of $514,790 (compared to $485,567 last year) in FY 2026-27 RMRA funding available to the City. It is recommended that these RMRA funds be used to augment the City’s Pavement Management Plan.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving a list of projects to be funded by SB1 in Fiscal Year 2026-27;

2. Do not approve a Resolution approving a list of projects to be funded by SB1 in Fiscal Year 2026-27 and request further information;

3. Modify staff’s recommendation and adopt a Resolution approving a list of projects to be funded by SB1 in Fiscal Year 2026-27; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Submitting projects to the CTC will allow the City to receive RMRA funds. The projects will help to protect the City’s investment in its roadway system.

DISADVANTAGES:

Full-depth reclamation will be impactful to the neighborhood, even though it will result in a structurally sound roadway.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the adoption in itself has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378.)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution

65501.00002\41404558.1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Arroyo Grande (City) are aware of the projects proposed for funding in the community and which projects have been completed with such funding each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the City will receive an estimated $514,790 (compared to $485,567 last year) in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026-27 from SB1; and WHEREAS, this funding will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB1 funding; and
WHEREAS, the City has undergone a process to ensure public input into the community’s transportation priorities/the project list; and
WHEREAS, the City uses its Pavement Management System and collaboration of the City’s various Departments to develop the SB1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate its approximately 68 miles of streets/road throughout the City this year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby:

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
SECTION 1. RECITALS. Finds that the foregoing recitals are true, correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. APPROVAL. Approves the following list of newly proposed projects that will be funded in-part
with fiscal year 2026-27 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project Title: 2026 Annual Street Repairs Project, PW 2026-01.

Project Description: This project will perform full depth reclamation on City streets as part of road maintenance and rehabilitation.

Project Location: Woodland Drive and Virginia Drive.
.

Estimated Project Schedule: Project development in Spring/Summer 2026; bidding in Summer 2026, and construction in Fall 2026.

Estimated Project Useful Life: The full depth reclamation planned for these locations has a useful life of approximately 25 years.

SECTION 3. CEQA. That the City Council finds that adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the adoption in itself has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.) SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

On motion by Council Member ________, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 14th day of April, 2026.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3
________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_________________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Item 9.f.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works BY: Shannon Sweeney, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Red Curb Adjustments, Huasna Road
DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution approving the addition of 15 feet of restricted parking and removal of 77 feet of restricted parking on the north side of Huasna Road just west of Rosewood Lane; and
2) Determine that the action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption because it is a minor alteration of an existing structure that involves negligible or no expansion of the existing use and no exceptions to the Class 1 exemption apply. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.) IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Staff estimates up to two hours to repaint approximately 92 feet of curb. The total dollar amount (labor, equipment, and materials) of the recommended change is about $200.

This work can be accomplished within the existing staff work schedule.

BACKGROUND:

Between 1973 and 2001, staff found fifteen references to speeding, pedestrian crossings, and parking concerns along Huasna Road in the vicinity of Strother Park from residents at the former Traffic Commission or City Council, resulting in multiple resolutions, actions, and grants to implement safety improvements. Despite these previous improvements, five accidents were reported in the last six years, one in 2020 resulting in a severe injury.

The City was awarded a grant through the Highway Safety Improvement Program to install a protective crosswalk across Huasna Road near Strother Park. The City Council awarded a contract for this work to V. Lopez and Sons on January 27, 2026. 1 1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=b0e57ebf-a6f0-427b-b090- fa1bdfeff273&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=50&Tab=attachments

Item 9.f.

City Council
Red Curb Adjustments, Huasna Road
April 14, 2026

Specific to the red curb, at a Traffic Commission meeting on November 15, 1979, the Parks and Recreation Commission requested that the Traffic Commission study the Huasna Road area adjacent to Strother Park regarding pedestrian safety, speed, and traffic flow to and from the park. At the time, City staff recommended that parking be eliminated on Huasna Road adjacent to the park, that parking be eliminated on the four lots directly across the street from the park, and that crosswalks be painted on the street with large pedestrian crossing signs posted and appropriate pavement markings.

At their subsequent meeting on December 13, 1979, the Traffic Commission recommended to the City Council that no parking zones be established on the southerly side of Huasna Road adjacent to Strother Park and on the northerly side of Huasna Road adjacent to 102 and 103 Rosewood Lane and 101 and 102 Pearwood Avenue.

City staff were not able to find a City Council Resolution designating these reserved spaces. As required by Municipal Code section 10.16.080, “the Council shall determine the location of all reserved spaces. No such reserved spaces shall be marked as such until the Council adopts resolution specifically designating the space to so be reserved.” The prepared Resolution documents the City Council’s intent to remove existing reserved spaces in light of the installation of the new crosswalk.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The City of Arroyo Grande Active Transportation Plan, adopted by the City Council on January 28, 2025,
2 lists recommended pedestrian improvements. One of those improvements is to consider installing curb extensions and other improvements for safe pedestrian crossing on Huasna Road at Rosewood Lane.

Because Huasna Road is over 60 feet wide and vehicles from the county travel at high speeds, City staff identified a refuge island as a critical component for safe pedestrian travel. A refuge island enables pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic flow at a time.

City staff evaluated multiple locations for these improvements. Staff determined that the best location for the crosswalk is in front of 1159 Huasna Road. The curb extension component of the new crosswalk at that location eliminates approximately two street parking spots. Attachment 2 shows the final layout.
77 feet of red curb currently exists on Huasna Road just east of Rosewood Lane. Staff recommends painting 15 feet of red curb, just before the bulb-out, as the Daylighting Law (AB413) prohibits parking within 15 feet prior to a crosswalk where a curb extension is present.

2https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=a9ffd954-d3f0-4b51-9ea9- 4dcb521e64ac&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=69&Tab=attachments

Item 9.f.

City Council
Red Curb Adjustments, Huasna Road
April 14, 2026

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt a Resolution to add 15 feet of red curb just before the new bulbout and remove 77 feet of red curb on the north side of Huasna Road just west of Rosewood Lane;

2. Do not adopt the Resolution and make no changes to the existing red curb; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The improved pedestrian crosswalk being constructed, which includes bulb-outs, rapid rectangular flashing beacons, a refuge island, additional signage, and improved striping, eliminates the need for a portion of the existing red curb, which was installed over 40 years ago to improve pedestrian crossing safety. Given that the new crosswalk’s bulb-out eliminates two street parking spaces, removing this red curb restores three parking spots, thereby removing a negative aspect of the new crosswalk for the adjacent property owners.

DISADVANTAGES:

No disadvantage has been identified. Eliminating the red curb can be absorbed within existing staff time. The new crosswalk eliminates the need for a portion of this parking restriction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Adopting a Resolution to add 15 feet of red curb and remove 77 feet of restricted parking on the north side of Huasna Road just west of Rosewood Lane is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption, which applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features where the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.) Further, the City finds that none of the exceptions to the Class 1 exemption apply.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Previous crosswalk layout - (what is being constructed)

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE APPROVING THE ADDITION OF 15 FEET AND REMOVAL OF 77 FEET OF RESTRICTED PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF

HUASNA ROAD JUST WEST OF ROSEWOOD LANE
WHEREAS, between 1973 and 2001, Staff found fifteen references to speeding, pedestrian crossings, and parking concerns along Huasna Road in the vicinity of Strother Park from residents at the former Traffic Commission or City Council, resulting in multiple resolutions, actions, and grants to implement safety improvements; and WHEREAS, in 1979, no parking zones were established on the southern side of Huasna Road adjacent to Strother Park and on the northern side of Huasna Road adjacent to 102 and 103 Rosewood Lane and 101 and 102 Pearwood Avenue; and WHEREAS, despite these previous improvements, five accidents were reported on Huasna Road near Strother Park in the last six years, one in 2020 resulting in a severe injury; and WHEREAS, the City was awarded a grant through the Highway Safety Improvement Program to install a protective crosswalk across Huasna Road near Strother Park; and WHEREAS, City staff identified a refuge island as a critical component for safe pedestrian travel at this location. A refuge island enables pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic flow at a time; and
WHEREAS, the locations for this crosswalk were studied, and the only location that provided adequate turning movements for vehicles is in front of 1159 Huasna Road; and WHEREAS, the curb extension of the crossing at that location eliminates approximately two street parking spots; and
WHEREAS, the improved pedestrian crosswalk being constructed, which includes bulbouts, rapid rectangular flashing beacons, a refuge island, additional signage, and improved striping eliminates the need for the extent of the existing red curb, which was installed over 40 years ago in an attempt to improve pedestrian crossing safety and restores street parking lost as a result of the curb extension.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby approve the addition of 15 feet and removal of 77 feet of restricted parking on the north side of Huasna Road just west of Rosewood Lane.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby determine that the addition of 15 feet and removal of 77 feet of restricted parking on the north side of Huasna Road just west of Rosewood Lane is categorically exempt

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption, which applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features where the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301.) Further, the City Council finds that none of the exceptions to the Class 1 exemption apply.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of April, 2026.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

Rosewood Ln.

Huasna Rd

22.55'
PAR
EN
K
TRANCE

ENGINEERING DIVISION
DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:
9/9/24 JB SS
0 30' 60'
ATTACHMENT 2
KKC
No space for turn
lane. Cars turning
left will block
through traffic and
create backup/
potential accident.

Only 1 car can turn at
a time and will cause
traffic to back up.

Potentially queue 1
car, but could cause
accident.

Rosewood Ln.

Huasna Rd

22.55'
PAR
EN
K
TRANCE

ENGINEERING DIVISION
DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:
9/9/24 JB SS
0 30' 60'
KKC
No cars can
queue. Only 1
car can turn at a
time and will
cause traffic to
back up.

No space for turn
lane. Cars turning
left will block
through traffic and
create backup/
potential accident.

Rosewood Ln.

Huasna Rd
PAR
EN
K
TRANCE
<
<-
<-
-

ENGINEERING DIVISION
DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:
9/9/24 KKCJB SS
No left turn for all
residents on
Rosewood Lane.

Power Pole
Guy WireAbove Ground Electrical Box
bulb out revisedto addressdrainage andgarbage canplacement Red Curb to beremoved forstreet parking ifapproved by citycouncil. cars can queueto turn

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bill Robeson, Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works BY: Shannon Sweeney, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 9.f – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Red Curb Adjustments, Huasna Road
DATE: April 10, 2026
Attachment 2 has been updated and is attached.

Cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc





















 









 























 



 







- 


Item 9.g.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
BY: Julie Hawkins, Deputy City Clerk/Communications Coordinator SUBJECT: Appointment to the Planning Commission
DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution appointing Cory Hanh to the Planning Commission; and 2) Determine that approving the appointments to the Planning Commission is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)- (3), 15378.).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There is no fiscal impact and minimal staff impact associated with preparing the staff report for this action.

BACKGROUND:

City Council policy sets forth appointment procedures for the City’s Commissions, Boards, and Committees. Section 5.3 of the City Council Handbook1 states that “the Mayor and each member of the Council shall appoint one representative to each respective Commission/Board/Committee…, subject to approval by a majority of the Council.” An unscheduled vacancy occurred on the Planning Commission as a result of Commissioner Roof's resignation.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The Planning Commission is responsible for advising the City Council and Community Development Department on all matters pertaining to the growth and development of the city. The Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council regarding

1 https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/4921/City-Council-Handbook-PDF

Item 9.g.

City Council
Appointment to the Planning Commission
April 14, 2026

reasonable and practical means for implementing the General Plan or any Element thereof, so that it will serve as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open space and natural resources, and for the efficient and effective expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the General Plan; provides annual reports to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation; clarifies ambiguities regarding Title 16 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code; and reviews and approves items as set forth in the Development Code.

Cory Hanh has applied to serve on the Planning Commission and is recommended for appointment by Council Member Secrest.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt a Resolution approving the appointment of Cory Hanh to the Planning Commission,

2. Do not approve the recommended appointment; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Approving the recommended appointment will fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission.

DISADVANTAGES:

No disadvantages have been identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item. Adopting the Resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)- (3), 15378.).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Application – Cory Hanh

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPOINTING CORY

HANH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, pursuant to Council policy, the Mayor and each Council Member shall recommend one representative to each respective Commission, Board, or Committee, subject to approval by a majority of the Council; and
WHEREAS, a vacancy occurred as a result of a resignation; and WHEREAS, Council Member Secrest is recommending the appointment of Cory Hanh to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, all Commission, Board, and Committee members serve at the discretion of the Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby resolve as follows:

1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Cory Hanh is hereby appointed to the Planning Commission.

3. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby determines that approving appointments to the various City Commissions, Board, and Committees is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)- (3), 15378.)

4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.

On motion by Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 14
th day of April, 2026.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
___________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

ATTACHMENT 2

Item 9.h.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Perez, Interim Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to Implement Housing Element Programs A. 1-2 and A. 10-2
DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt an Ordinance implementing Housing Element Programs A. 1-2 and A. 10-2 by amending Chapter 16.36 relating to allowed residential uses and residential density in Mixed-Use zones; and
2) Find that the Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085; IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

No financial impact is projected.

BACKGROUND:

On January 26, 2021, the City Council adopted the 2020-2028 Housing Element. The Housing Element was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on May 5, 2021. The City must initiate the programs in the Housing Element to implement its policies and achieve its quantified objectives.

The proposed ordinance amendments would implement Housing Element Programs A.1- 2 and A.10-2. Each program is intended to allow for additional density and the creation of new housing opportunities within certain mixed-use zones. Program A.1-2 expands the type of residential uses allowed in the Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) zone. Program A.10- 2 encourages higher density and reduces constraints to multifamily residential development by increasing the maximum residential density in the Office Mixed-Use (OMU), Fair Oaks Mixed-Use (FOMU), and Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU) zones, and reducing permit requirements.

Item 9.h.

City Council
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to Implement Housing Element Programs A. 1-2 and A. 10-2 April 14, 2026

The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance amendments at its meeting on February 17, 20261. The Planning Commission was supportive of the amendments as proposed and adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance. At a public hearing on March 24, 20262, the City Council introduced the Ordinance as proposed.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The Ordinance amendments are now ready for adoption. The Ordinance amendments will become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt the Ordinance as proposed;

2. Modify the Ordinance amendments and direct staff to return at a future public hearing to introduce the modified amendments; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The Ordinance would amend the development code to implement two housing programs from the City’s Housing Element that encourage the development of affordable housing to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment targets.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified. Housing Element Program implementation is required to maintain compliance with state Housing Element Law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The ordinance amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085, which exempts rezoning actions that implement programs contained in an approved housing element.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance

1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=cc8d916a-1d15-47f4-91d3- a0fc84653a3c&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=18&Tab=attachments 2https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=cc8d916a-1d15-47f4-91d3- a0fc84653a3c&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=18&Tab=attachments

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING HOUSING ELEMENT
PROGRAMS A.1-2 AND A.10-2 BY AMENDING CHAPTER

16.36 RELATING TO ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL USES AND

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN MIXED USE ZONES
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the sixth cycle (2020-2028) Housing Element of the City of Arroyo Grande (City); and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element includes a variety of programs intended to achieve various identified housing goals; and
WHEREAS, Housing Element program A.1-2 directs the City to amend the Municipal Code to remove the limitation of only live-work residential uses in the Traffic Way Mixed-Use zone by allowing a mixed use residential use type at up to 20 dwelling units per acre; and WHEREAS, Housing Element program A.10-2 directs the City to amend the Municipal Code to increase the maximum density for multifamily residential projects in the Office MixedUse (OMU), Gateway Mixed-Use (GMU), and Fair Oaks Mixed-Use (FOMU) zones; and WHEREAS, Housing Element program A.10-2 also directs the City to amend the Municipal Code to allow multifamily residential projects in the OMU, GMU, and FOMU zones with a Minor Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance amends Chapter 16.36 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to amend the development standards for the TMU, OMU; FOMU, and GMU zones; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning the ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to forward the ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its adoption; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony, agenda reports, and other written materials prepared in connection with the ordinance or offered in the matter as presented at the public hearing; (2) the policy considerations discussed therein; and (3) the consideration and recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on March 24, 2026 introduced this Ordinance to amend Chapter 36 Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Environmental. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085 which exempts development code amendments that implement programs contained in an approved housing element. The City’s housing element was certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development on May 5, 2021, and the programs being implemented by this development code amendment do not meet the criteria for actions that do not qualify for this exemption.

SECTION 3. Required Findings. In accordance with section 16.16.040(E) of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. General Plan. The ordinance’s amendments to the AGMC are consistent with the General Plan and necessary and desirable to implement the provisions thereof.

Specifically, Housing Element program A.1-2 directs the City to expand the allowable residential use types in the Traffic Way Mixed-Use zone to encourage the creation of housing units. This ordinance effectuates and implements program A.1-2 by allowing all multifamily use types and establishing development standards and permitting requirements for the use.

Additionally, program A.10-2 directs the City to amend the Municipal Code to increase the maximum allowable density for multifamily projects in certain mixed-use zones and modify the permitting requirements for those projects. This ordinance effectuates and implements program A.10-2 by amending the development standards and the permit requirements these projects. For these reasons, the ordinance’s amendments to the AGMC are consistent with the General Plan and necessary and desirable to implement the provisions thereof.

2. Health, Safety, and Welfare; Illogical Land Use Pattern. Adoption of the ordinance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare as it updates the AGMC by modifying the types and intensity of multifamily housing in certain mixed-use zones where residential uses are already allowed. The increase in allowable density is an implementation of the City’s Housing Element. Implementation of these programs were analyzed in the Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Addendum).

The Addendum determined that the project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR and would not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, or welfare. Finally, this ordinance will not result in an illogical land use pattern as it is not amending the City’s zoning map and increases allowable density in mixed-use zones that contemplate multifamily housing that would benefit from existing infrastructure and services.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3

3. Consistency with Title 16. This ordinance is consistent with the purpose and intent of AGMC Title 16 because it does not alter or revise the type or intensity of allowed uses and ensures that the provisions thereof are consistent with the City’s Housing Element, which establishes a plan for managing growth and residential development in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the General Plan. Additionally, the implementation of these programs encourages residential and mixed-use development by increasing the allowable density and reducing the permit requirement from a conditional use permit to a minor use permit.

4. Environmental. See Section 2 above.

SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Pursuant to Housing Element program A.1-2, Subsection 16.36.020.B of Section 16.36 “Commercial and Mixed Use Development Standards and Site Development Standards” of Chapter 16.36 “Commercial and Mixed Use Districts” of Title 16 “Development Code” is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit “A-1,” and incorporated by reference. New text is displayed in underline and deletions are shown in strikethrough.

SECTION 5. Code Amendment. Pursuant to Housing Element program A.1-2, Table

16.36.020(B) of Section 16.36.020 “Commercial and Mixed Use Development Standards and Site Development Standards” of Chapter 16.36 “Commercial and Mixed Use Districts” of Title 16 “Development Code” is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit “A-2,” and incorporated by reference. New text is displayed in underline and deletions are shown in strikethrough.

SECTION 6. Code Amendment. Pursuant to Housing Element program A.10-2, Table 16.36.020(E) of Section 16.36.020 “Commercial and Mixed Use Development Standards and Site Development Standards” of Chapter 16.36 “Commercial and Mixed Use Districts” of Title 16 “Development Code” is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit “A-3,” and incorporated by reference. New text is displayed in underline and deletions are shown in strikethrough.

SECTION 7. Code Amendment. Pursuant to Housing Element program A.10-2, Table 16.36.020(F) of Section 16.36.020 “Commercial and Mixed Use Development Standards and Site Development Standards” of Chapter 16.36 “Commercial and Mixed Use Districts” of Title 16 “Development Code” is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit “A-4,” and incorporated by reference. New text is displayed in underline and deletions are shown in strikethrough.

SECTION 8. Code Amendment. Pursuant to Housing Element program A.10-2, Table 16.36.020(H) of Section 16.36.020 “Commercial and Mixed Use Development Standards and Site Development Standards” of Chapter 16.36 “Commercial and Mixed Use Districts” of Title 16 “Development Code” is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit “A-5,” and incorporated by reference. New text is displayed in underline and deletions are shown in strikethrough.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4
SECTION 9. Code Amendment. Pursuant to Housing Element programs A. 1-2 and A.10-2, Table 16.36.030(A) of Section 16.36.030 “Uses Permitted Within Mixed Uses and Commercial Districts” of Chapter 16.36 “Commercial and Mixed Use Districts” of Title 16 “Development Code” is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit “A-6,” and incorporated by reference. New text is displayed in underline and deletions are shown in strikethrough.

SECTION 10. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within 15 days after adoption of the ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted ordinance.

SECTION 11. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after adoption.

SECTION 12. Severability. Should any provision of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this ordinance or the application of this ordinance to any other person or circumstance, and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted all the provisions of this ordinance that remain valid if any provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid.

SECTION 13. Records. The documents and materials associated with this ordinance that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council’s findings and determinations are based are located at 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420.

The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

On motion by Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this ____ day of _______, 2026.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 5
___________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
________________________________

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 6
EXHIBIT A-1

16.36.020 Commercial and mixed use development districts and site development standards.

B. Traffic Way Mixed Use (TMU) District. The primary purpose of the TMU district is to provide for vehicle sales and services, related retail and office uses, and visitor serving facilities, and multi-family residential development convenient to both freeway traffic and vehicles or pedestrians from the nearby village area. Development standards and design guidelines are intended to enhance this specialized mix of uses at the southern gateway to Arroyo Grande which include automobile and small truck sales and service, equipment rental, repair and related services, offices, wholesale and retail sales including outdoor display, motels, restaurants and multi-family residences limited residential uses functioning as live-work units. The TMU district implements and is consistent with the Mixed Use land use category of the general plan. Refer to Table 16.36.020(B) for minimum site development standards and Table 16.36.030(A) for allowable uses. See design guidelines and standards for the vicinity of Traffic Way and Station Way for additional requirements.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 7
EXHIBIT A-2
Table 16.36.020(B)
Traffic Way Mixed Use (TMU)
Minimum Site Development Standards

1. Maximum Density Mixed Use
Projects
New residential limited to live-work units in conjunction with allowed uses. Density determined by discretionary action. 25 dwelling units/acre

2. Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (gross).

3. Minimum Lot Width 80 feet

4. Front Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales determined through discretionary action.

5. Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed use district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use district, a minimum building setback of twenty (20) feet measured from the property line shall be required for
proposed commercial use.).

6. Side Yard Setback 0 feet. Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed use district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use district, a minimum building setback of twenty (20) feet measured from the property line shall be required for
proposed commercial use.

7. Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales determined through discretionary action.

8. Building Size Limits Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the CUP process for visitor serving uses. Maximum building size is 50,000 square feet; a greater size may be allowed through the CUP process.

9. Site Coverage and Floor Area
Ratio
Maximum coverage of site is 75%. Maximum floor area ratio is .75.

10. Site Design and Signs See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11. Additional sign standards also in Chapter 16.60.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 8

11. Off-Street Parking and Loading See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11 Exhibit 'A' for shared parking locations. See Also Section 16.56.020.

Exceptions allowed by Section 16.16.120.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 9
EXHIBIT A-3
Table 16.36.020(E)
Gateway Mixed Use (GMU)
Minimum Site Development Standards

1. Maximum density—Mixed Use
Projects
25 dwelling units/acre (based on gross project area).

2. Maximum density—Multi-family
housing
15 25 dwelling units/acre.

3. Minimum density (projects that do
not front E. Grand Avenue.)*
75% of maximum density (measured on residential portion of horizontal mixed use project area or 50% of project
area, whichever is less).

4. Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet (gross).

5. Minimum Lot Width 100 feet.

6. Front Yard Setback 0 - 10 feet. Exceptions for larger setbacks may include entrance courtyards, areas for outdoor dining, or for
projects facing a residential district as determined through discretionary review.

7. Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Parking encouraged. For projects abutting a residential district, corresponding residential setback shall apply.

8. Side Yard Setback 0 - 5 feet. For projects abutting a residential district, corresponding residential setback shall apply.

9. Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor dining, or architectural/landscape features determined
through discretionary action.

10. Building Size Limits Maximum height is 35 feet or three stories whichever is less; a maximum of up to 40 feet for mixed use projects by discretionary action on lots larger than 20,000 square feet and where the building is not adjacent to a residential district. See Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed Use Districts. Also see Section 16.48.030(B)(5) and (6).

Maximum building size is 102,500 square feet.

11. Site Coverage and Floor Area
Ratio
Maximum coverage of site is 75%. Maximum Floor Area
Ratio is 1.5.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 10

12. Site Design and Signs Commercial and mixed use projects larger than 20,000 sq. ft: 200 square feet of public accessible open space is
required for every 5,000 square feet of office or
commercial space exclusive of areas for parking and
driveways. See General Commercial and Mixed Use
Design Guidelines and Standards. General Plan Policies
LU5-11. For mixed use projects, refer to Section

16.48.065. Additional sign standards also in Chapter

16.60. 13. Off-Street Parking and Loading See Design Guidelines and Standards. Parking is to be located behind buildings or to the side. Driveways along E.

Grand Avenue shall be minimized by combining
driveways, using alleys or designing development so that access is provided from local streets. See Section

16.56.020.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 11
EXHIBIT A-4
Table 16.36.020(F)
Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU)
Minimum Site Development Standards

1. Maximum Density Mixed Use
Projects
25 dwelling units/acre (based on gross project area).

2. Maximum Density Multi-family
housing
15 25 dwelling units/acre.

3. Minimum Density (projects that
do not front E. Grand Avenue.)*
75% of maximum density (measured on residential portion of horizontal mixed use project area or 50% of project
area, whichever is less).

4. Minimum Lot Size 15,000 square feet (gross).

5. Minimum Lot Width 80 feet.

6. Front Yard Setback 0 - 10 feet. Exceptions for larger setbacks may include entrance courtyard areas for outdoor dining , or for
projects facing a residential district as determined through discretionary review.

7. Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Parking encouraged. For projects abutting a residential district, corresponding residential setback shall apply.

8. Side Yard Setback 0 - 5 feet. For projects abutting a residential district, corresponding residential setback shall apply.

9. Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor dining, or architectural/landscape features determined
through discretionary action.

10. Building Size Limits Maximum height for mixed residential/commercial use is 35 feet or three stories whichever is less; a maximum of up to 40 feet for mixed use projects by discretionary action on lots larger than 20,000 square feet and where the
building is not adjacent to a residential district. See Design Guidelines and Standards for Mixed Use Districts. Also
see Section 16.48.030(B)(5) and (6). Maximum building
size is 50,000 square feet.

11. Site Coverage and Floor Area
Ratio
Maximum coverage of site is 70%. Maximum Floor Area
Ratio is 1.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 12

12. Site Design and Signs See Design Guidelines and Standards. Please note General Plan Policies LU5-11. For mixed use projects,
refer to Section 16.48.065. Additional sign standards in Chapter 16.60.

13. Off-Street Parking and Loading See Design Guidelines and Standards. Parking is to be located behind buildings or to the side. Driveways along E.

Grand Avenue shall be minimized when possible by
combining driveways, using alleys or designing
development so that access is provided from local streets.

See Section 16.56.020.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 13
EXHIBIT A-5
Table 16.36.020(H)
Office Mixed Use (OMU)
Minimum Site Development Standards

1. Maximum Density Mixed Use
Projects
20 dwelling units/acre (based on gross project area)

2. Maximum Density Multi-family
Housing
15 25 dwelling units/acre

3. Minimum Density * 75% of maximum density (measured on residential portion horizontal mixed use project area or 50% of project area, whichever is less)

4. Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (gross); 20,000 square feet for residential projects

5. Minimum Lot Width 100 feet

6. Front Yard Setback 0 - 10 feet Exceptions may include entrance courtyards and areas for outdoor dining determined through
discretionary review. 10 feet is required for projects
fronting a street opposite a residential district.

7. Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Parking encouraged.

8. Side Yard Setback 0 - 5 feet.

9. Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor dining, or architectural/landscape features determined
through discretionary action.

10. Building Size Limits Maximum height for mixed residential/commercial use is 35 feet or three stories whichever is less. Also see Section

16.48.030(B)(5) and (6);Maximum building size is 50,000 square feet; a greater size may be allowed through the
CUP process;(See OMU-D-2.20);Three-story building
components allowed only with substantial transitional
space and/or lower story elements adjacent to residential districts or uses.

11. Site Coverage and Floor Area
Ratio
Maximum coverage of site is 70%. Maximum Floor Area
Ratio is 1

12. Site Design and Signs See OMU-D-2.20. Please note General Plan Policies LU5-

11.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 14
For mixed use projects, refer to Section 16.48.065.

Additional sign standards also in Chapter 16.60.

13. Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 16.56.020.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 15
EXHIBIT A-6
Allowed Land
Uses and Permit
Requirements—

LAND USE

IMU TMU
D-2.11
VCD
HCO
D-2.4
VMU
D2.11
HCO
D-2.4
GMU FOMU HMU OMU 1
D-2.20
RC 2 Specific Use
Standards and
other references
F.

RESIDENTIAL
USES
Multi-family
housing not
located within a
mixed use project
NP NP
MUP

NP CUP CUP/
PED
MUP4
CUP/
PED
MUP
CUP
(on
lots >
20,00
0 sf)
CUP
(on
lots >
20,000
sf)
MUP
NP Minimum density
(75% of total
density allowed
by district)
required by
Housing
Element is not
required on lots
fronting E.

Grand Ave., E.

Branch Street or
in HMU or IMU
districts.

Multi-family
housing in
a mixed use
project
CUP NP
CUP
NP CUP CUP CUP MUP CUP CUP Minimum density
(75% of total
density allowed
by district)
required by
Housing
Element is not
required on lots
fronting E.

Grand Ave., E.

Branch Street or
in HMU or IMU
districts.

Item 10.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Andrew Perez, Interim Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical
Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: April 14, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case 26-001 and approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Construction of Ninety-Two (92) Multi-Family Dwelling Units; Location – 1271 and 1281 James Way; Appellants – Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust, and Finding the Project Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a), and Categorically Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

At the time the appeal was submitted, the appellants paid the required fee of $1,327.20.

This fee is intended to cover costs for processing the appeal. The appellants were invoiced for $531.30 to reschedule the public hearing to cover costs with re-noticing the public hearing and additional staff time to prepare meeting materials.

BACKGROUND:

The appeal hearing was included on the March 24, 2026, City Council agenda, but was rescheduled after the appellant requested additional time. In the interest of fairness, the City Council was willing to grant a short extension to the April 14, 2026, City Council meeting. This staff report supplements and does not replace the original published staff report, which includes staff’s recommendation and robust analysis supporting its recommendation for project approval. That original staff report is linked and incorporated by reference. This supplemental report addresses new arguments that the appellant

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

raised after the March 24, 2026,
1 staff report was published, as well as other concerns raised by community members.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

In addition to the appellant’s appeal letter (received on January 30, 2026), the appellant submitted two letters on March 23, 2026, with new arguments challenging staff’s recommendation to approve the project. A brief summary of the appellant’s new arguments and staff’s responses are provided below.

Reliance on the Project Being Deemed Complete Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2)
Appellant asserts that the application having been deemed complete pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) was used as a “newly advanced” basis for concluding that certain issues are no longer subject to review, but argues that Council’s de novo review authority under AGMC § 1.12.010 allows for “an independent, new determination on the merits and [Council] is not bound by the Planning Commission’s findings or the Staff Report’s legal conclusions.”
Staff Response:

De novo review does allow the City Council to independently review the project and the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the project. However, such review continues to be limited by the requirements and constraints under state housing law. The appellant’s argument understates the significant limits created by the Permit Streamlining Act and Housing Accountability Act on the City’s review of this project. Here, the project application received robust City review in accordance with state law requirements.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65943, the City ensured that the application included everything required by its application checklist. The applicant was required to submit multiple rounds of application materials, and the City issued two rounds of deficiency letters before the application was ultimately deemed complete. The foregoing demonstrates the degree to which the City thoroughly reviewed the application and ensured all materials required by the City’s application checklist were submitted.

Under state law, once an application is determined to be complete, the Housing Accountability Act requires the City, within 30 days thereof, to identify any applicable objective development standards that the project is inconsistent with (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)). This is a mandatory state law requirement, which the City satisfied on August 27, 2025, when it provided written notice to the applicant identifying objective

1https://pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=14124ea9-2733-4542-ab4f3e33c371de81&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=47&Tab=attachments

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

development standards the project did not satisfy, including building height, floor area ratio, parking lot landscaping, and open space. With respect to the 32’ creek setback, the underlying staff report explains both the circumstances associated with that City standard and the history of allowing that setback on the project site.

The appellant suggests that the legal effect of Gov. Code section 65589.5(j)(2) would still allow the City to “ensure compliance with the City’s own objective development standards.” However, the HAA provides cities with one opportunity — immediately following when the application is determined to be complete — to notify the applicant of any inconsistencies with the City’s development standards. If a city misses this deadline or does not identify an objective standard that the project is inconsistent with, state law deems the project consistent with those standards (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(b)).

Additionally, under state law, the applicant’s use of a Density Bonus, concession, waiver, or parking reduction is not a valid basis to deem the project inconsistent with the City’s objective standards (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(3)). This point was not addressed in the Planning Commission materials because it had not yet been raised on appeal. The appellant argues that certain development standards must now be applied. The original appeal staff report properly explains that — for purposes of state law — the project is consistent with the City’s objective development standards. The HAA does not allow project denial or the City to condition the project based on generalized concerns about neighborhood character, compatibility, or other subjective concerns (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(9); see also Bankers Hills 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755,778.). The City Council’s de novo review does not change the legal effect of Gov.

Code section 65589.5(j), nor does it provide an additional (independent) basis to review the project for consistency against newly raised standards or subjective considerations.

Inadequate Parking Supply Creates Specific Adverse Impacts to Public Health and Safety Appellant asserts that the project does not provide adequate parking to serve future residents because the developer is relying on shared parking to which the applicant has no right to use. The Appellant alleges that parking shortage will result in specific, adverse impacts such as spillover parking, increased congestion on James Way, traffic hazards, and nuisance impacts on neighboring businesses and residents.

Staff Response:

Broadly speaking, state law is increasingly limiting in the instances where cities can impose parking requirements on housing projects. For instance, state law generally prohibits cities from imposing any parking requirements on projects located within a half mile of certain major transit stops (See Gov. Code, § 65863.2(a)). Within the density bonus law context applicable to this project, the statute establishes a minimum parking ratio for qualifying projects, which is based on the unit mix and bedroom count (Gov.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

Code, § 65915(p)(1)). Applicants can utilize this parking ratio as a matter of right, and if the applicant so chooses, can use one of their concessions to further reduce the parking provided (Gov. Code, § 65915(p)(5)). On March 18, 2026, the applicant submitted a letter formally revising the concession request to reduce the parking requirement from 98 spaces to the 31 spaces provided in garages. The private garages are reserved for residents, so the project no longer relies on shared parking to provide the parking required after granting the concession. Under state law, the City may only deny a requested concession based on a statutorily specified reason (e.g. no cost reductions; unmitigable specific, adverse impact; contrary to state or federal law).

Not providing parking in accordance with Zoning Code requirements does not constitute a specific, adverse impact (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(d)(2)(A)). The appellant’s generalized argument that a shortage of parking will create a specific, adverse impact to public health and safety is not supported by evidence that the impacts will be significant and unavoidable based on objective public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete (Id., at (d)(2), (j)(1); see also Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(1)(B)). Concerns cited about differing interpretations of private agreements are a civil matter between private parties and not grounds for denying the parking concession or the project.

Dispersal of Units
Appellant asserts that the project fails to comply with AGMC Section 16.82.040(E), which requires that all affordable housing units must be “reasonably dispersed throughout the housing development; shall be proportional, in size, bedroom number and location to the market rate units; and shall be comparable with the market-rate units in terms of the base design, architectural appearance, building materials and finished quality.” Staff Response:

Condition of approval No. 96 requires the applicant to record a density bonus agreement (Agreement) with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The Agreement will establish the number, type, affordability level, and duration of the units reserved for lowerincome households to satisfy the qualifying criteria for the density bonus under state law.

Both the number of units and their location are dependent on the level of affordability (low or very-low income), which has not been established at this point in the process. Staff’s review and preparation of the Agreement will ensure compliance with AGMC section

16.82.040(E), and the City’s authority pursuant to that recorded density bonus agreement on the property, ensures that the construction and disbursement of the affordable units will be equitable. As a policy matter, the deed-restricted, affordable units that will result from this project significantly assist the City in meeting its required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which is the mandated number of affordable units that the City

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

must plan for as part of its current Housing Element cycle, and which must be reported to the State annually.

Inadequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis
Appellant asserts that the project does not qualify for the statutory exemption provided by AB 130 and that further environmental analysis is required to evaluate traffic impacts.

Specifically, the letter from the appellant's counsel, Edwin Rambuski, claims the project’s eligibility for the exemption is reliant on compliance with the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (Transportation Study Guidelines).

Staff Response:

AB 130 created a new statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for infill housing development projects that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in PRC Section 21080.66. An analysis of the project determined that the project meets the eligibility criteria for this exemption. That analysis is provided as Attachment 5 to the March 24, 2026, staff report. None of the criteria contemplates potential transportationrelated impacts because the exemption specifically applies to infill housing projects, which are presumed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The City’s Transportation Study Guidelines require a project application to include a traffic study when the projected trip generation during any peak hour is equal to or greater than 20 trips. This project is anticipated to generate approximately 36 AM peak hour trips and 37 PM peak hour trips; therefore, a Traffic and Circulation Study was done to evaluate the project’s impacts in accordance with the City’s Transportation Study Guidelines.

The Transportation Study Guidelines also describe when a project-specific VMT analysis is required. Pursuant to SB 743, VMT is the only metric recognized by CEQA to evaluate the significance of transportation-related impacts. The analysis determined that this project would not have a potentially significant VMT impact because the estimated VMT/capita (12.29) is more than 15% below than the existing VMT (20.2). Therefore, even in the event that the statutory exemption required a VMT analysis, the traffic analysis demonstrates the project would not result in a potentially significant transportation-related impact. The study also determined that the project would not result in the degradation of level of service at any study-area intersections and is compliant with Circulation Element policies.

Note that, as a Density Bonus Law project, the City may not condition the submission, review, or approval of the application on preparation of an additional report or study unless state law otherwise requires it (Gov. Code § 65915(a)(2)). Nothing in state law, including Density Bonus Law, authorizes the City to require additional traffic analysis as a

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

precondition to acting on a qualifying concession, for instance, applicant’s requested parking reduction.

Concessions Under Density Bonus Law
Appellant asserts that the “applicant bears the burden to prove with substantial evidence that each waiver or concession is necessary to avoid physical preclusion” and that the record lacks that evidence.

Staff Response:

Appellant incorrectly asserts that the applicant bears the burden of proof as to requested concessions or waivers2. It is the opposite. State law expressly places the burden of proof on the City to deny a requested concession or waiver (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(4)). The statutory scheme is therefore one of mandatory approval unless the City can make one of the narrow findings authorized by law.

Case law has reinforced the high burden placed on cities seeking to deny a requested concession or incentive, including limits on cities’ ability to ask for information regarding cost savings (Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal. App. 5th 549). Denial of concessions or waivers requires the City to support such a determination with substantial evidence. Courts have recognized that granting a concession is mandatory when a qualifying affordable housing project is proposed, unless the City can make one of the narrow findings under statute (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 933, 941). Thus, the City faces a high burden of proof in order to deny the requested concession. For the reasons described in the March 24, 2026, staff report, the City does not believe any of the statutory findings can be made to deny the requested concessions.

Impacts on Sensitive Riparian Habitat and/or Threatened Species Appellant asserts that the HAA does not compel the City to approve housing without conducting environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Appellant further asserts that the City must analyze the project’s potential impacts to Meadow Creek’s riparian habitat and any threatened species before approval.

2 The appellant’s March 23, 2026, letter indicated that the parking reduction is requested as a waiver, but staff notes it is requested as a concession. Concessions have similar, but not identical, requirements under Density Bonus Law. Waivers also are mandatory under the law unless the required narrow findings can be made, but the appellant has not challenged any of the three waivers requested by the applicant (i.e. building size, FAR, open space/unit)

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

Staff Response:

Appellant incorrectly claims that the fair argument standard of review should apply to this project. Citing to Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903 is incorrect, as that case concerns a mitigated negative declaration for which the fair argument standard of review applies, and not a statutory exemption like AB 130 utilized by this project. Instead, when reviewing the applicability of a statutory exemption, the nature and extent of the project’s environmental impacts are ordinarily irrelevant. This is because the State Legislature is free to create exemptions regardless of their consistency with CEQA’s environmental purposes (Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 956, 966, fn. 8). Thus, statutory exemptions are enacted to lift the burden of environmental review from specified classes of projects that may have significant effects; limiting a statutory exemption to projects that will not adversely affect the environment would defeat the purpose of the exemption (See, e.g., Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento (2009) 47 Cal.4th 902, 909). Therefore, the sole question is whether the project fits within the language of the exemption (County of Ventura v. City of Moorpark (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 377, 386). The City’s determination of the applicability of the statutory exemption must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence (Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., supra, at 967-968).

City staff determined that the project is statutorily exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. Contrary to appellant’s claim that the City only looked at general plan and zoning designations, the project was found to be eligible for this exemption by meeting each of the enumerated criteria under Section 21080.66 (See Attachment 5 of the March 24, 2026 staff report). With regard to potential impacts to sensitive riparian areas and habitat for protected species, the exemption is supported by substantial evidence. The biological resource studies confirm that no wetlands exist on the Project site (See Exhibits 1 and 2 to Attachment 5 of the staff report). Further, the Project’s biologist concluded that “the proposed project would have no impact on any wetland, riparian habitat, or waters of the U.S./State” (Attachment 5, Exhibit 2, p. 4). Thus, substantial evidence supports the project’s eligibility to meet the Public Resources Code section 21080.66 criteria.

Accordingly, based on the record of proceedings, City staff continues to find that the AB 130 statutory exemption applies to the project. In addition, because the project site is located on an in-fill site, staff has also included findings in this supplemental report and resolution supporting the Class 32 – Infill Development exemption under State CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as an alternative basis for CEQA.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

Erroneous Application of Mixed Use Standards
Appellant asserts that the project is erroneously defined as a mixed-use development.

Staff Response:

The project both qualifies as a “housing development project” under state law and is properly analyzed as a mixed-use project under the City’s Municipal Code. The HAA defines a housing development project as a use consisting of residential units only or mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2)(A)-(B)). Separately, staff evaluates projects under mixed-use development standards under the City’s Municipal Code when the project site is surrounded and served by commercial uses, as with this development application. The project will also share ingress, egress, and parking amenities with adjacent commercial uses, justifying its classification as a mixed-use development. The project is treated as a housing development project for purposes of state housing law (the HAA and Density Bonus Law), while also being reviewed under the City’s mixed-use development standards for purposes of local code compliance. Accordingly, the appellant has not shown an erroneous application of mixed-use standards. The City’s analysis appropriately distinguished between the project’s status as a housing development project under state housing law and the proper interpretation of applicable local code designation under mixed-use standards. Finally, since the applicant is eligible based on the deed-restricted affordability component of the project to seek concessions under Density Bonus Law, the applicant could choose to seek a concession associated with that mixed-use designation under City’s Municipal Code. (Gov. Code, § 65915(k)(3).) Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety
Appellant asserts that the HAA imposes an “obligation” on the City to make specific adverse impact findings. Appellant also asserts that if the City were to grant the requested concession to reduce the parking requirement, the project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety.

Staff Response:

Both assertions are meritless under state housing law. First, the HAA does not impose an obligation on the City to make specific, adverse impact findings when approving a housing project. Rather, when a project qualifies under the HAA, state law only allows a city to deny that housing project (or condition approval at a lower density) when necessary to avoid an unmitigable specific adverse impact on health and safety. Put simply, the HAA does not require cities to make specific adverse impact findings when approving a housing project. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1).)

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

Second and finally, no evidence in the record indicates that approving the requested concession and the project will result in a specific adverse impact on public health and safety. The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(1)(A)). The HAA specifically provides that a project’s inconsistency with the zoning ordinance, such as not providing parking in accordance with local requirements, does not constitute a specific adverse impact on public health or safety (Id., at (d)(2)(A)). The appellant’s generalized assertions regarding alleged health and safety impacts associated with the requested parking concession do not withstand legal scrutiny. Critically, the appellant has neither provided nor cited any objective evidence or health and safety standards that indicate that granting the concession and approving the project will result in a specific, adverse impact, as defined under the HAA.

Under the HAA, anecdotal generalizations about perceived impacts — that are not based on objective public health or safety standards — do not provide a defensible basis to deny the project or the requested parking concession.

Public Comment
In addition to the arguments made by the appellant, general public comment in opposition to the project raised concerns about emergency access, neighborhood compatibility, creek preservation, and impacts to nearby businesses.

Emergency Access
All applications for discretionary projects are reviewed by the Five Cities Fire Authority for compliance with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code and the California State Fire Code.

In combination, these codes require that a project provide sufficient ingress and egress for emergency vehicles, the internal circulation allows adequate space for emergency vehicles to maneuver, and also provides sufficient area for emergency personnel to execute emergency operations. This project is no different. The project maintains the two existing driveways from James Way, both of which can provide access for emergency vehicles to serve this project and the other buildings in the plaza. Several conditions of approval for the project require express compliance with the Fire Code, including fire access roads being kept clear of parking, which will be accomplished by painting red curbs and posting no parking signs in accordance with Fire Code regulations. Importantly and more broadly, the conditions of approval also require that the applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the most recent editions of the California Building Standards Code, which includes the 2025 California Fire Code. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact emergency access or levels of service.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

Neighborhood Compatibility
The HAA requires that the City evaluate housing projects based on the objective design and development standards that exist when the application is deemed complete. State law is strict in precluding the City from basing its project approval or denial on subjective standards that involve personal judgment, or anecdotal considerations that are not codified and are not uniformly verifiable. This does not minimize legitimate neighborhood compatibility concerns; however, it does limit the City’s ability to address those concerns under State law. State law also prohibits the City from requesting design changes or otherwise conditioning a project in a way that would have the effect of reducing a project’s density or adversely impacting the affordability or viability of providing those units. The applicable objective development standards related to the massing and scale of the project include those for building height, area, floor-area ratio, and lot coverage. The application requests a concession to exceed the maximum building height standard and waivers to allow the project to exceed the building size limitation of 50,000 square feet and the floor-area ratio of 1.0. The project complies with the lot coverage standard.

As previously discussed, the City is obligated to grant the requested concessions and waivers absent making one of the narrow findings codified by state statute, including a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that is based on objective, written public health or safety standards. As articulated throughout the materials, City staff does not believe any of the requisite findings can be met to deny. The City has the burden of proof for any such denial. Were a court to deem the City to have wrongly denied a density bonus, incentive, concession, or waiver, the reviewing court would award attorney’s fees and court costs to the plaintiff (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1)).

Creek Preservation
To make the determination that the project is eligible for an AB 130 statutory exemption, the City independently reviewed the biological studies for the project, which confirms that there would be no impacts to riparian habitat on the project site. Additionally, the prepared Resolution includes four conditions (Nos. 66, 81, 93, and 94) for purposes of maintaining the health of the creek. For example, condition no 81 requires surface stormwater to be filtered to remove pollutants prior to being discharged into the creek via storm drains. A vegetation management plan is required to both maintain the health of the riparian areas adjacent to the project site and reduce fire hazards. The project’s landscape plan will consist of species that are native to the riparian area. In combination, these conditions will ensure the health of the creek is maintained.

For all of the above stated reasons, as well as those articulated in the March 24, 2026, staff report, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and approve the project.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt the prepared Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 26-001 and approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001;

2. Modify and adopt the prepared Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 26-001 and approving Conditional Use Permit 25-001;

3. Do not adopt the prepared Resolution, take tentative action to uphold Appeal Case No. 26-001, and provide director for staff to return with appropriate supporting resolution including findings for denial of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Denial of the appeal will approve a housing project, provide units specifically reserved for residents qualifying as very low income or low income, and help the City meet its RHNA obligations under its adopted Housing Element. Furthermore, the project was processed in accordance with the HAA and Density Bonus Law.

DISADVANTAGES:

The reduction of parking pursuant to State law could impact the availability of parking on the shared site. These concerns are expected to be attenuated by conditions of approval included in the prepared Resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In July 2025, the Governor signed a budget trailer bill (AB 130) that includes new and amended statutes, including Public Resources Code section 21080.66, which significantly streamlined the environmental review process for housing projects.

Based on substantial evidence, City staff has determined that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66 (Infill Housing Development Exemption). A full analysis of the Project’s eligibility is included in Attachment 5. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council find the Project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66(a).

Additionally, and in the alternative, the Project is also categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32 – Infill Development). Here, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use (MU) and a zoning designation of Office Mixed Use (OMU). The project would provide multi-family housing and is therefore consistent with both MU and OMU designations. The project site is 1.81 acres located within the City of Arroyo Grande, and is immediately surrounded by commercial uses on three sides, which include a hotel, medical offices,

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

fitness facility, and a religious facility across James Way to the north. Based on the biological resource studies for this project, the project site also has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The traffic and circulation study for the project determined that the project would not have a potentially significant VMT impact because the estimated VMT/capita (12.29) is more than 15% below than the existing VMT (20.2); thus, the project will not result in significant transportation impacts. The project will also not result in significant construction noise impacts because the project would comply with the City’s time restrictions on construction activities pursuant to the City’s standard conditions for the project. Similarly, the project’s operational noise impacts would also be less than significant because operational noise would be similar to the noise from other nearby commercial uses. Given the size of the project, the project will also not result in significant air quality impacts. The project will not have significant impacts relating to water quality because the project would be required to comply with the NPDES MS4 permit during construction and operation of the project, which would require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The project site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Further, none of the exceptions set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here. There will be no significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There is no reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances. The project may not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, the project also qualifies for the Class 32 categorical exemption.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. A public hearing notice for the rescheduled hearing was posted at the project site, published in the New Times on April 2, 2026, and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site on April 2, 2026.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Project Location

3. Planning Commission Resolution 2026-002

4. January 30, 2026 Appeal Form

5. AB 130 CEQA Findings

6. Traffic and Circulation Study

Item 10.a.

City Council
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002;Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271&1281 James Way;Appellants–Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
April 14, 2026

7. Appellant Letters dated March 23, 2026

8. Public Comment received for the March 24, 2026 Agenda

9. Public Comment received prior to publishing

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 26-001 AND
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001;
CONSTRUCTION OF NINETY-TWO (92) MULTI-FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS; LOCATION – 1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY;
APPELLANTS – PISMO MEDICAL PROPERTIES LLC, ARROYO

GRANDE PARTNERS LLC AND RAY B BUNNELL REVOCABLE

TRUST, AND FINDING THE PROJECT STATUTORILY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION
21080.66(a) AND CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332
WHEREAS, the existing project site incorporates two parcels with a combined size of approximately 1.81 acre parcel located at 1271 and 1281 James Way; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 25-001 to construct ninety-two (92) multi-family dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a density bonus and related incentives and concessions pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code section 65915) based on the provision of affordable housing units, where at least 15% of the total base density units are restricted as affordable to very low income households or 24% of the base density units are restricted as affordable to low income households, resulting in a maximum allowable density of up to ninetytwo (92) dwelling units after applying a 50% State Density Bonus Law unit increase and density unit equivalents of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) section 16.36.030(C); and WHEREAS, the Staff Advisory Committee considered the project on March 12, 2025, and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee considered the project on November 3, 2025, and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the project at a duly noticed public hearing on January 20, 2026, and adopted a Resolution No. 2026-002 approving Conditional Use Permit 25- 001; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed project is statutorily exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, a statutory exemption from CEQA review for certain infill housing developments, as documented in the Memorandum for the project (see Attachment 3 of the January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report) and categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as documented in the record before City Council; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2026, Pismo Medical Properties, LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners, LLC,

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2
and Ray Bunnell, Trustee of the Ray B. Bunnell Revocable Trust timely filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution 2026-002 approving Conditional Use Permit 25- 001; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing scheduled for March 24, 2026 was rescheduled for April 14, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the project at a duly noticed public hearing on April 14, 2026, in connection with all materials included in Agenda Item 10.a, and all other written and oral testimony presented to the City Council at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande does hereby resolve as follows:

Section 1. Recitals: All recitals above are true, correct, and incorporated herein.

Section 2. CEQA Findings:

The City Council hereby finds that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66, which became effective on June 30, 2025, with the passage of Assembly Bill 130, and as documented in the Memorandum for the Project (see Attachment 5 of the March 24, 2026 City Council Staff Report).

The City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. Project Site Size (PRC § 21080.66(a)(1)(A-B)): The project site is 1.81 acres, and therefore is not more than 20 acres.

2. Project Location (PRC § 21080.66(a)(2)(A-B)): The entirety of the project site lies within the incorporated City of Arroyo Grande.

3. Urban Uses (PRC § 21080.66(a)(3)(A-D)): Approximately 77% of the area within a onequarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.

4. General Plan and Zoning Consistency (PRC §21080.66(a)(4)(A-C)): The project, as proposed, is consistent with applicable general plan and zoning ordinances, including the following General Plan Elements: Land Use; Housing; Conservation and Open Space; and Circulation because the project proposes a density that is allowable when calculating the base density and incorporating State Density Bonus law. The Land Use Element establishes a maximum density of 25 dwelling units/acre and the project proposes 37.3 dwelling units per acre, using State Density Bonus Law. Pursuant to State law, a project's density increase under the density bonus law is considered consistent with the general plan. Therefore, the project is consistent with the elements of the General Plan.

5. Minimum Density (PRC §21080.66(a)(5)): The project’s proposed density exceeds onehalf of the applicable density (10du/ac) by proposing a density of 37.3du/ac.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3

6. Environmental Conditions (PRC §21080.66(a)6)): The proposed project is not located within the coastal zone, nor is it located on prime farmland or within a wetland or a very high fire hazard severity zone. Furthermore, the project site is not a hazardous waste site, is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone, and is not located within a special flood hazard area or a regulatory floodway. The project site has not been identified for conservation in an adopted community conservation plan, is not habitat for protected species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and is not a land under conservation easement.

7. Historic Resource (PRC § 21080.66(a)(7)): The project does not propose or require the demolition of a historic structure.

8. Hotel or Transient Use (PRC § 21080.66(a)(8)): The proposal consists of 92 multifamily residential units and does not include any transient lodging or short-term rentals.

Additionally, and in the alternative, the City finds that the project is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Infill Development Projects). The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning designation and regulations because it is located within the Office Mixed Use (OMU) district and has a General Plan designation of Mixed Use (MU), involving construction of ninety-two (92) multifamily residential units within an urbanized mixeduse corridor, including the unit increases granted under State Density Bonus Law. The project occurs within the limits of the City of Arroyo Grande on a project site consisting of two parcels cumulatively sized under 1.81 acres. Furthermore, the project site is substantially surrounded by urban uses. As supported by the biological studies, no habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species exists on the project site. The City has also determined that no significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality would arise from approval of the project. Existing infrastructure ensures that the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

None of the exceptions outlined in State Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here. There are no unusual circumstances that would give rise to a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. No scenic resources would be damaged as a result of the project. The location of the project site is not on the Cortese list of hazardous waste sites or any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Finally, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Therefore, the City finds that the project would be categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 32 exemption.

City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk and Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation within five business days of the adoption of this resolution.

Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Arroyo Grande Municipal Code §16.16.050(D)):

1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 4
of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City.

The project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 1.81 acres and is located within the Office Mixed Use (OMU) district, which allows residential uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal involves construction of ninety-two (92) multifamily residential units within an urbanized mixed-use corridor and was processed in accordance with the requirements of AGMC Title 16, including review by the Staff Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Committee, both of which recommended approval.

The project is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation in the General Plan, which encourages residential development in proximity to commercial, office, transit, and community-serving uses. As documented in the staff report, the project implements multiple General Plan policies, including LU-5-1, LU5-3, LU5-9, LU5-11, CT5-2, and Housing Element policies A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5, A.9, A.10-1, and A.11, by providing increased housing density in the form of infill development, integrating residential uses into a mixed-use area, pedestrian-oriented design, and increasing the supply of affordable housing.

The project proposes to reserve fifteen percent (15%) of the base density units as deedrestricted units affordable to very low income households or 24% of the base density units as deed-restricted units affordable to low income households, qualifying the development for density increases, concessions, and wavers under Government Code § 65915.

Residential density for mixed-use projects in the OMU district is calculated using density equivalency factors pursuant to AGMC §16.36.030(C). Based on these calculations, the project results in ninety-two total (92) units. Increases granted under State Density Bonus Law are deemed consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations.

2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located.

The project site is surrounded by a variety of compatible uses, including a hotel, medical offices, a fitness facility, shopping center, religious facility, and nearby residential neighborhoods. The proposed multifamily development is consistent with the existing and planned character of the mixed use corridor along James Way, which will serve the existing commercial uses and integrate with and contribute to a vibrant commercial core.

On November 3, 2025, the Architectural Review Committee evaluated the project, including its parking, building materials, site design and accessibility. The Architectural Review Committee supported the project’s architecture, which utilizes architectural elements designed to reduce perceived massing through articulation, modulation, and varied materials. Landscaping, setbacks, and screening along the eastern boundary adjacent to Meadow Creek further ensure compatibility with nearby residential and open space areas.

As conditioned, the project will integrate appropriately into the district, without impairing its integrity or character, through the urban-oriented site planning, share parking, internal open space, and architectural elements described above.

3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed.

The site is an approximately 1.81ac parcel with existing development and the site is suitable for additional development based on conformance with the City’s development standards and zoning regulations. The site is currently vacant land, and the proposed project will infill

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 5
on the L-shaped lot, within an incorporated urban area of the City. Existing public infrastructure is available to serve the development, including roadway access from James Way, access to commercial services, and available public utilities.

The size, configuration, and zoning of the site are sufficient to accommodate the proposed two-building, four-story multifamily development, including on-site parking, open space, landscaping, storm water facilities, and emergency access. Accordingly, the site is suitable for the proposed residential use and intensity of such use.

4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety.

The project site is located within an urbanized area served by existing public water, sewer, storm drainage, fire protection, police services, and transportation infrastructure. As detailed in the staff report and conditions of approval, the project will be required to comply with all applicable City engineering standards, fire access and flow requirements, stormwater management regulations, and utility service prior to issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy. Therefore, there are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety.

5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity.

The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to nearby properties and improvements because the use is both compatible with adjacent uses and has been properly conditioned to limit its impacts. The project will be developed with appropriate utility connections, curbs, sewer laterals, gutters, and sidewalks necessary to serve the 92 unit development. Additionally, the project proposes a residential use that is compatible with the residential uses east of the project site. Those existing residential uses are further buffered by Meadow Creek, which runs along the eastern property boundary. Potential adverse impacts on public health and safety will be satisfactorily mitigated by the proposed conditions such that the use will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Among other things, these proposed conditions require illumination of parking spaces for safety, that trash enclosures be screened from public view with screening materials that complement the architectural features of the main building, and limitation on construction and operational activities in accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the AGMC. Accordingly, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be materially injurious to nearby properties and improvements due to its compatibility and the conditions of approval.

SECTION 4. Density Bonus Concessions: In accordance with Government Code §65915, as a project providing either 15% of units restricted to very low income units, or 24% restricted to low income units, the project qualifies for three concessions under Gov. Code §65915(d). The project will receive three concessions as follows:

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 6

1. Allow the project to be built ten feet higher than the maximum permitted building height, from 35’ to 45’. See Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Section 16.36.020(H)(10);

2. Allow the project to provide sixty-eight (68) less parking spaces than the parking minimum, providing thirty-one (31) spaces instead of ninety-nine (99). See AGMC Section

16.56.060(1)(e); and

3. Allow the project to provide roughly 2% less of the off-street parking and access gross lot area as landscaping in the interior of the parking area, providing eight and twenty-three hundredths of a percent (8.23%) rather than the minimum of ten percent (10%). See AGMC Section 16.56.130(1)
SECTION 5. Density Bonus Waivers: In accordance with Government Code § 65915(e), the project is eligible for an unlimited number of waivers from development standards that would physically preclude the construction of a development that meets the criteria of Gov. Code § 65915(b). The project will receive three waivers as follows:

1. AGMC Section 16.36.020(H)(10) limits maximum building size to 50,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting allowance to construct Building A at 77,269 square feet in order to achieve the maximum allowable density;

2. AGMC Section 16.36.020(H)(10) limits floor area ratio (FAR) to 1.0. The applicant is requesting to exceed this allowance with a proposed FAR of 1.3 in order to achieve the maximum allowable density; and

3. AGMC Section 16.48.0651requires a minimum of 350 square feet of open space per unit.

The applicant is requesting a reduction in this requirement to approximately 176 square feet per unit to achieve the maximum allowable density.

SECTION 5. Appeal Findings: Having considered written grounds for the appeal and the additional oral and written testimony presented at the public hearing, and the responses to the appeal provided by staff, the City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the grounds raised in the appeal (appellant’s assertion is identified in italics):

Assertion 1: Inadequate and Unenforceable Parking Provision Due to Binding Reciprocal Easements and Historical Overburdening. Contrary to the Applicant's assertions that it has the parking rights to accommodate the Project, it cannot deliver adequate, exclusive, or enforceable on-site parking for the 92-unit Project as represented. After applying reduced parking requirements under Density Bonus Law (Gov't Code § 65915), the Planning Commission determined the Project requires 99 parking spaces and granted a concession to allow 98. However, the proposed parking fails to comply with state and local requirements, relies on unenforceable off-site and shared arrangements, and is burdened by longstanding recorded easements.

City Response: Staff cannot opine on the enforceability of the parking easements between private parties; however, staff notes that these “unenforceable” parking easements have been recorded with the Clerk-Recorder for San Luis Obispo County. (See e.g. Appeal, Exhibit A and

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 7
Exhibit B) The private parking agreements bear limited value to City’s review over this matter and the applicant’s request. Pursuant to GC Section 65915(b)2, a city shall grant incentives or concessions for projects meeting certain criteria contained within this section. By reserving fifteen percent (15%) of the base density units for very low-income household or 24% of the base density units for low-income households, the project is entitled to up to three concessions that provide relief from development standards. Irrespective of the private parking easements, on March 18, 2026, applicant requested to modify the concession for a reduction of the parking requirement from 99 to 31 on-site spaces provided in private garages. Government Code section 65915(d) provides the findings required to deny a concession or incentive sought by a housing applicant, and those findings cannot be made. The concession to reduce parking will result in costs savings to the applicant, the reduction of parking will not a have a specific or adverse impact that cannot be mitigated, and the requested concession is not contrary to State or Federal law. Pursuant to Gov. Code §65589.53, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. With the application of a parking concession, the project is deemed in compliance with state and local requirements..

Sub-assertion (a): Proposed Parking Does Not Comply with On-Site Parking Regulations.

Government Code § 65915(p) and AGMC § 16.56.030 require that reduced parking be located "on-site." Only 31 spaces for the proposed Project (all one-car garages) are truly on-site. The remaining 67-68 spaces are proposed off-site, including shared spaces within the adjacent Oak Park Professional Plaza ("Plaza"). 4 AGMC §§ 16.56.040 and 16.56.050 allow common/shared parking only if the total equals the sum of individual use requirements, spaces are within 500 feet, and facilities are available without interfering with other uses. No agreements exist with Plaza property owners (including Appellants) for shared use, nor has any such arrangement been proposed or conditioned.

City Response: The proposed parking is not inconsistent with Government Code § 65915(p) or AGMC § 16.56.030. A reduction in parking is a standard concession, and a reduction from the minimum parking requirement from 99 spaces to a reduced number of parking spaces is consistent with State Density Bonus Law. This is a quintessential concession and expressly authorized by the Government Code. (See Gov. Code section 65915(k)(1)[Concession or incentive means “a reduction . . . in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise

2 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GO V
3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=655

89.5 4 At the January 20, 2026, Planning Commission hearing, there was some discussion regarding proposed parking spaces provided across James Way in the Hope Church parking lot and contradiction regarding whether or not an agreement is in place. While the Project may not have relied specifically on spaces across the street, they were referenced as "accessory" parking (1/20/2026 Meeting Video, 2:02:20, pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com) and were part of the Planning Commission discussion. Regardless, the Hope Church lot is beyond 500 feet, lacks any existing parking agreement of any kind, and evidence will be presented that no parking at all, whether for construction or otherwise, was agreed or will be granted. Thus, parking and staging requirements cannot be satisfied through reliance on the Hope Church lot.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 8
be revised. . . “], see also (p)(5)[“An applicant may request parking incentives or concessions beyond those provided in this subdivision pursuant to subdivision (d)[concessions/incentives]”) Irrespective of the private parking easements, the use of reduced onsite parking is justified under State law. Gov. Code section 65915(p)(4) says that a “development may provide onsite parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking.” Thus, in direct contrast with the appellant’s assertion, the original proposal provided onsite parking in the precise manner contemplated by state law. GC Section 65915(p)(6)5 establishes maximum parking ratios for density bonus projects and also provides the City discretion to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for development projects of any type in any location. Moreover, while residential projects adjacent to commercial projects have been treated as mixed-use in the City, state law also allows the project to be evaluated with mixed-use zoning through application of a concession.6 Therefore, the City’s granting of a parking reduction and the applicant’s election to provide shared onsite parking complies with applicable State and City regulations regarding onsite parking.

Sub-assertion (b): Proposed Parking Does Not Comply with Covered Parking Regulations. To avoid AGMC requirements for covered parking in residential/multi-family projects (AGMC §

16.56.060(e)), the Applicant and the Planning Commission improperly classify the Project as "mixed-use". AGMC § 16.04.070 defines a "mixed-use project" as "a project" that combines both commercial and residential uses. Constructing residential units adjacent to existing commercial projects, separate from and unrelated to the proposed Project, and not modified by the proposed Project, does not constitute a mixed-use project under the AGMC. Only 31 of the 98 spaces are covered, rendering the Project non-compliant. (See also, Section 2(c) below for further discussion regarding improper mixed-use classification.)
City Response: AGMC 16.04.070 defines mixed-use projects as those that combine commercial and residential uses, where the residential component is typically located above or behind the commercial use. Despite the project’s proposing only residential units, the presence of the existing commercial uses and the nature of the proposal’s shared ingress, egress, and parking amenities justifies the classification of the subject project as a mixed-use development. This interpretation has consistently been applied by City staff and the Planning Commission on a number of projects in the recent past. State Density Bonus Law further authorizes the applicant to have the project be treated as mixed-use through application of a concession.7 As addressed above, a residential project located within a commercial shopping center has historically been categorized as a mixed-use project. AGMC §16.56.060(e) is inapplicable to a mixed-use project like the one proposed because parking required for residential use in mixed-use projects does not have to be covered (See Table “Off-Street Parking Requirements”, Residential Uses Note). However, even if this were deemed a residential project through an interpretation of AGMC §16.04.070 that is inconsistent with past practice of the City, uncovered parking is nevertheless justified. As a Density Bonus Law project, the housing development may provide onsite parking through tandem or uncovered parking. (Gov. Code § 65915(p)(4).) State law overrides the development standard that appellant identifies. Density Bonus Law also permits a

5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65915&lawCode=GO V
6 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2).
7 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2)

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 9
concession to evaluate the project based on mixed-use standards.8 Finally, the applicant could seek to modify its parking concession further and seek an additional reduction of spaces, which could make the uncovered parking spaces argument by appellant moot.

Sub-assertion (c): Binding Easements Limit Applicant's Ability to Deliver Parking. The proposed Project site remains burdened by:
i. A 2000 Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement (as amended in 2008), granting nonexclusive parking and access rights to Curl Fitness/Poma Fitness Holdings (flea Kennedy Club Fitness) patrons, employees, and invitees, with requirements for replacement spaces if development reduces availability. (See Exhibits A and B.) ii. A separate easement/settlement agreement granting Best Western Casa Grande Inn primary parking rights to approximately 18 spaces on portions of the site, including signage, towing provisions, and priority over others (originating from a 2015 settlement resolving prior litigation). (See Exhibit C.) There is no first right of refusal for the Applicant, as falsely claimed during the Planning Commission meeting. (See, 1/20/2026 Meeting Video, 1:22:20-25, pubarroyogrande.escribemeetings.com.) Other misrepresentations regarding the 18 parking spaces were also made during the meeting, which were contradicted by public comments (e.g., a chain installed by the hotel blocks the existing drive aisle and the hotel has never used the parking spaces, both of which were refuted). (See, 1/20/2026 Meeting Video, 1:21, 2:08, 2:29.) These 18 spaces cannot reliably count toward the Project's requirement, as hotel guests have primary rights and can demand vehicles be moved within one hour, effectively reducing enforceable residential parking to approximately 80 spaces. These encumbrances were not extinguished by prior lot line adjustments and bind the Project site. Approval without conditioning release, amendment, or resolution of these easements constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates AGMC requirements for adequate parking.

City Response: The appellants assert that the applicant’s existing encumbrances limit their ability to provide the required parking. First, the City is not a party to any private parking agreements, and, therefore, is not legally obligated to enforce any that exist. Those easements generally describe reciprocal parking easements, allowing shared parking on the project site.

Second, by dedicating at least 15% of base density units for very low-income households, or twenty-four percent (24%) of the base density units for low-income households, the project qualifies for up to three concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915(d)(2)(C). The applicant may request a parking concession to reduce the total number of required spaces, and still be found in compliance with the City’s minimum parking requirements for this project.

Moreover, per AGMC § 16.56.050, common parking facilities may be provided in lieu of individual requirements for individual uses and the parking facilities are located within five hundred (500) feet of the associated use. The appellant has presented a number of reciprocal parking easement agreements, which demonstrate compliance with provision of individual parking as common parking facilities, as authorized by AGMC § 16.56.050. The applicant’s own submitted materials demonstrate the project’s consistency with the parking requirements, with the application of the concession. It does not constitute an abuse of discretion for the City to

8 Gov. Code § 65915(k)(2).

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 10
approve the project “without conditioning release, amendment, or resolution” of the easements discussed in the appeal. Instead, as an HAA project, the City may not disapprove or condition the project at a lower density absent a “specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety . . . based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5) The City does not have, and did not identify at the time the application was deemed complete, any standards, policies, or conditions requiring modification to existing private property agreements in order to approve a project.

Sub-assertion (d): Historical Parking Shortages and Citv-Acknowledged Issues. City-required parking monitoring reports (Orosz Engineering Group) dating back to 2004 documented chronic shortages, high occupancy (areas perceived full at 85-95%, with peaks up to 93% and certain areas reaching 100%), misuse, and management challenges under lower-demand commercial/medical uses. (See Exhibits D and E.) A 2015 Planning Commission memorandum for a prior lower-impact senior project on the Project site (requiring only 59 spaces) also acknowledged these historical issues, easements, and constraints. (See Exhibit F.) Adding 92 higher-occupancy residential units will exacerbate displacement and spillover, rendering even reduced ratios insufficient as a practical matter.

City Response: The appeal states that the City has acknowledged parking issues at this shared use site through historical entitlement reviews of the subject property. While the City has previously analyzed parking impacts in this location, that analysis was prepared for different applications not before the City now. State law requires that cities make findings to approve or disapprove projects based upon the facts of the application being reviewed. Even City “acknowledgement” of parking “issues” at and near the site does not meet the standard for specific, adverse impacts as defined above in the Government Code.

Moreover, the appellant’s arguments fail to apply the appropriate standard to Council’s review and omit key conclusions of the report. The appellant relies on a 2004 parking monitoring report prepared by Orosz Engineering Group. Appellant merely asserts there have been “historical issues” previously reviewed by the City, and concludes the “reduced [parking] ratios are insufficient.” However, the same Orosz Engineering Group report appellant relies on concluded, “The data indicated that the site overall has adequate parking available to tenants, patients and patrons.” (Appeal, Exhibit E, p. 91 of 366). The report further discusses that the “management issues” can be resolved by encouraging “employees to utilize parking” in another area. (See id.) Thus, the appellant does not present evidence that supports denial of the project based upon the general parking assertions identified in the appeal.

Assertion 2: Improper Application of Statutory CEQA Exemption (Pub. Res. Code 21080.66).

Despite the City Attorney's statements to the contrary, the proposed Project does not qualify for the AB 130 statutory exemption because it fails multiple eligibility criteria and triggers exclusions (see generally, Exhibits G and H):

City Response: Attachment 5 provides a thorough analysis of the findings required in order to utilize the statutory exemption provided by AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code §21080.66). Staff has made each of the findings affirmatively and contends that the statutory CEQA exemption does apply

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 11
to this project.

Sub-assertion (a): Sensitive Site/Riparian Habitat Exclusion. The proposed Project site abuts Meadow Creek along its entire eastern boundary. Similar exemptions (e.g., SB 35) explicitly exclude projects on sites with wetlands or riparian habitat. The Project's "nesting" design near the creekbed risks erosion, habitat disturbance, and non-compliance with Fish & Game Code § 1602 (streambed alteration). Staff findings ignore this exclusion and fail to demonstrate no significant environmental effects.

City Response: Public Resources Code section 21080.66 does not preclude the City from relying on this statutory exemption because it abuts Meadow Creek. Instead, Public Resources Code section 21080.66 permits the use of this exemption only if it meets certain criteria, including that the Project site not be located on wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.66(a)(6). Here, Exhibit 1 to Attachment 5 contains a letter written by the project’s biologist stating that no wetlands, as defined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, exist on the project site. Further, the presence of riparian habitat alone on the site does not preclude the City’s reliance on this statutory exemption, as it is not one of the identified criteria under Public Resources Code section 21080.66. As identified in the June 27, 2026, Creekside Junction Project Existing Conditions Biological Resources Assessment and Updated Meadow Creek Waters of the U.S./State Jurisdictional Limits Determination, the Project site is mainly paved and dirt parking lots, with a constructed basin and berm along Meadow Creek supporting upland non-native annual grassland, ruderal areas with patches of coyote brush, and a small stand of coast live oaks and willows on the southeast corner of the site. (Attachment 5, Exhibit 2 ) This cluster of coast live oaks and arroyo willow trees above the top of Meadow Creek bank are in uplands, and not associated with a riparian context. (Id., p. 2.) The project would have no impact on any wetland or riparian habitat. (Id., p. 4.) As for the appellant’s claims that the Project design will risk erosion and non-compliance with Fish & Game Code section 1602, the Project Condition of Approval 76 requires the applicant to submit improvement plans, including erosion control, and be approved by the Public Works Department and/or Community Development Department. Further, AGMC 13.24.120 requires the applicant to implement erosion and sediment control measures prior to, during, and after construction.

The applicant will be required to obtain approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). City staff will review the SWPPP to ensure that the plan is consistent with City requirements prior to approval of the development and construction plans. Therefore, the project satisfies the requirements in AB 130 and Public Resources Code section 21080.66.

Sub-assertion (b): Surrounding Urban Uses Criterion Not Met. Less than 75% of the site perimeter adjoins urban uses; the eastern boundary is open space/creek, reducing effective urban adjacency below the threshold.

City Response: Public Resources Code section 21080.66(a)(3)(A)-(D) requires that the Project site meet any of the following criteria: (1) previously developed with an urban use, (2) at least 75 percent of the site perimeter adjoins parcels developed with urban uses, (3) at least 75 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses, or (4) for sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. As stated in Attachment 5, criterion 3, approximately 77% of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the project site is developed with urban uses.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 12
California Public Resource Code Section 210729 defines urban uses as any residential, commercial, public institutional, transit/transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or a combination thereof. Therefore, the surrounding urban uses criterion is met.

Sub-assertion (c): Inconsistency. with Zoning and General Plan. The proposed Project site is currently commercial-only with no existing residential component and is encumbered by easements restricting residential uses. Premature classification as "mixed-use" (Office Mixed Use district) creates circular reasoning. (See, AGMC § 16.04.070.) The Project relies on post-approval mixed-use status to qualify for density incentives and exemptions, without resolving legal barriers. This violates requirements for consistency with applicable plans and standards.

City Response: As articulated through, State law clearly exempts any inconsistency with General Plan or Zoning standards that are due to the application of density bonus concessions or waivers. (Gov. Code, § 65915(j)(1); Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) Further, contrary to appellant’s reasoning, Public Resources Code section 21080.66(a)(4)(C) states that “approval of a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program.” Additionally, no evidence in the record indicates that approving the project, as conditioned, would have an unmitigable specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.

Sub-assertion (d): Failure to Meet Other Performance Standards. Required tribal consultation, Phase I assessment completeness, and air quality measures all are inadequately documented or unverified in the record.

Statutory exemptions require strict compliance; substantial evidence does not support the findings in Attachment 3 (AB 130 Findings). (Exhibit H.) Furthermore, contrary to any assertions by legal counsel during the January 20, 2026, Planning Commission meeting that AB 130 precludes further investigation into project eligibility (see 1/20/2026 Meeting Video, 3:02:293:03:37, pub-arroyogrande.escribemeetings.com), the statute mandates that the lead agency verify strict compliance with all objective criteria, including zoning consistency, absence of legal restrictions (e.g., easements), and environmental protections. AB 130's intent is to streamline approvals for qualifying projects, not to bypass factual verification or allow approvals without substantial evidence supporting exemption findings (Pub. Res: Code § 21080.66; see also, Gov't Code § 65589.5 for related housing accountability). The Commission's failure to investigate parking encumbrances and other issues constitutes an abuse of discretion under CEQA review standards (Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5), rendering the exemption invalid.

City Response: The City’s tribal consultation efforts regarding the project are included in Attachment 5. Eight separate tribal representatives were notified of the project. One tribe requested consultation, and consultation resulted in the addition of Condition of Approval

9 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=2107 2

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 13
Number 143 to the Planning Commission Resolution. This is in addition to Condition of Approval Numbers 136-142 that are required by AB 130. Tribal consultation for the project concluded consistent with applicable State law on January 2, 2026. As required under Public Resources Code section 21080.66, a Phase 1 ESA has already been provided to the City and as such, this Project satisfies Public Resources Code section 21080.66(c)(1)(A).

Assertion 3. Violation of Creek Setback and Riparian Protection Standards. The Project encroaches too closely on Meadow Creek, violating General Plan Element C/OS2-1.3 (25-50-foot setback where feasible) and AGMC § 16.44.050 (50-foot enforceable setback). The proposed 32- foot setback is insufficient and no variance was requested nor granted. The split-level design places taller portions nearest the creek, increasing erosion, flooding, and habitat risks without adequate mitigation, permits, or impermeable surface restrictions (per Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Creek Care Guide).

City Response: The 32’ creek setback proposed by the applicant for the project has already been deemed consistent with AGMC § 16.44.050. The HAA provides that if a city does not notify an applicant of an inconsistency with an applicable development standard before the application is deemed complete, the project is deemed consistent with unidentified standards, as a matter of law. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)–(B).) This standard was not identified by staff as an inconsistency at the time the application was deemed complete because prior approvals located along Meadow Creek have been approved with a 32’ setback or a substantially similar setback.

Furthermore, the 32’ creek setback is consistent with General Plan policy C/OS2-1.3: “Where feasible, maintain a development setback of 25 – 50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope, habitat and floodplain characteristics. Locate development outside the setback.” (Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element (2007), Arroyo Grande General Plan) Under the HAA, a project is deemed consistent with zoning standards when there is an inconsistency between the zoning code standard and the General Plan standard. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(4)) As a 32’ setback is consistent with the applicable General Plan standard of a setback of 25-50 feet.

By way of additional background, as discussed in a March 24, 2015, staff report to City Council for a previous project at this property, a creek variance setback had previously been approved at 35’ for this site, and staff had previously recommended a variance for the setback at 32’. (Appeal, Ex.

F, p. 104 of 366) Staff had previously analyzed that application of the 50’ creek setback standard would “reduce the buildable lot width significantly.” (Id. at p. 113 of 366) That staff report identified that there would be apparent benefits to the creek habitat, where development would “enhance the health and function of the riparian area” by removing invasive species and providing revegetation benefits. (Id.) While application of the creek setback standard is now precluded by state law, if the applicant were to request a density bonus waiver under Gov. Code § 65915(e), the applicant would be entitled to an 18’ deviation from the setback requirement to avoid physical preclusion of the project.

Thus, the proposed 32’ foot creek setback is deemed consistent with the City’s development standard by two separate provisions of state law, and the applicant would be entitled to a waiver from the standard because strict application would preclude the applicant from building at the proposed density.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 14
Assertion 4. Inadequate Traffic and Circulation Analysis. Shared parking agreements and historical shortages will cause spillover onto adjacent streets and plazas. Mitigation measures (e.g., shared spaces with Best Western hotel and/or Hope Church) are insufficient under SB 743 VMT standards and the City's Circulation Element, especially given higher residential trip generation. In addition, in preparation of the hearing, both the hotel and the church pastor have confirmed they have no agreement with the Applicant and do not intend to enter into any such agreements.

City Response: In compliance with Senate Bill 743, the City has adopted a Transportation Impact Study Guidelines10, which are based on a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric rather than the traditional Level of Service (LOS). Based on the City’s VMT screening criteria, the project is not screened out and was required to complete a VMT analysis. Residential projects that conduct a VMT analysis shall calculate the project VMT per capita using the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) travel demand model and compare the results to regional VMT with and without the project’s modeled impacts. As shown in the analysis (Attachment 6), the existing homebased VMT for Arroyo Grande is 20.2 VMT per capita, while the project is expected to result in

12.29 VMT per capita. Per the City’s guidelines, this is more than fifteen percent (15%) below existing VMT and thus, the project would not have a potentially significant impact on VMT.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the City’s requirements for evaluating potential traffic and circulation impacts.

Assertion 5. The Project Does Not Qualify for Preferential Treatment. As discussed herein, the Project fails to comply with applicable zoning, development standards, state housing laws, and CEQA exemption criteria. As such, the Project does not qualify for the preferential treatment under Government Code § 65589.5 as asserted by the January 20, 2026, Memorandum or the Planning Commission. Additional arguments related to lack of qualifications will be provided prior to and at the hearing.

City Response: This project meets the definition of a housing development project in the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2).) Staff has evaluated the project and determined that it complies with the City’s objective standards. State law exempts any inconsistency as a result of density bonus concessions or waivers. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) Additionally, no evidence in the record indicates that approving the project, as conditioned, would have an unmitigable specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. The project’s required review under applicable State law does not constitute preferential treatment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case 26-001 and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 15
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this th day of , 2026.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 16

JAMIE MARAVIGLIA, MAYOR PRO TEM
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 17
EXHIBIT ‘A’

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-001
APPEAL CASE 26-001
1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. This approval authorizes the construction of ninety-two (92) multi-family residences at 1271 and 1281 James Way.

2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project.

3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for CUP 25-001.

4. This application shall automatically expire on April 14, 2028 unless a building permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration.

5. Development shall conform to the Office Mixed Use (OMU) requirements except as otherwise approved.

6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council at the meeting of April 14, 2026 and marked Exhibit B on file in the Community Development Department. References to the vacation of the existing six-foot pedestrian easement on the creek side of Building A shall be removed.

7. To the extent permitted by law, Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Arroyo Grande, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City related to this permit or approval. Although the Applicant is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition.

8. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated into all construction documents.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 18

9. Applicant shall submit a tabular matrix showing status of all conditions of approval prior to first building permit submittal and again before project closeout.

10. At the time of application for construction permits, plans submitted shall show all development consistent with the approved site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations and landscape plan.

11. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, “Fences, Walls and Hedges”; 16.48.120, “Performance Standards”; and 16.48.130 “Screening Requirements”.

12. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.60 of the Development Code.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, all illegal signs shall be removed.

13. Setbacks, building height, building size, lot coverage, floor area ratio, available parking counts, parking lot landscaping square footage, and the total amount of private or combined open space shall be as shown on the development plans including those specifically modified by these conditions.

14. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.56, “Parking and Loading Requirements” except as otherwise approved by the City or allowed by State law. All parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet.

15. All parking areas of five or more spaces shall have an average of one-half foot-candle illumination per square foot of parking area for visibility and security during hours of darkness.

16. Trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials and shall be made of an exterior finish that complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure area shall accommodate recycling container(s).

17. Noise resulting from construction and operational activities shall conform to the standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. No construction shall occur on City observed holidays.

18. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide details on any proposed exterior lighting, if applicable. The lighting plan shall include the height, location, and intensity of all exterior lighting consistent with Section 16.48.090 of the Development Code. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the lamp nor the related reflector interior surface is visible from adjacent properties. All lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare to adjacent properties. All lighting shall be energy efficient (e.g. LED).

19. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan shall be installed or bonded for before final building inspection/establishment of use. The landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The landscape plan shall be in

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 19
conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) and shall include the following:
a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
i. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5’) of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs;
ii. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants.
iii. An automated irrigation system using smart controller (weather based) technology.
iv. The selection of groundcover plant species shall include native plants. v. Linear planters shall be provided in parking areas.
vi. Turf areas shall be limited in accordance with Section 16.84.040 of the Development Code.

20.The applicant shall provide the City with a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code.
a. If a recognized environmental condition is found, the applicant shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Section 78095 of the Health and Safety Code, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity.
b. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy.
c. If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues a certificate of occupancy

21. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the conditions of the Community Tree Ordinance (431 C.S.) which include but are not limited to:
a. No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved by the Parks and Recreation Director.
b. No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of any tree. c. No grading shall occur under a tree’s dripline, unless approved by the Public Works Director.
d. A five foot (5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8' from the

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 20
trunk of each tree or at the dripline, whichever distance is greater. e. At a minimum, all pruning shall comply with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standards and Best Management Practices. An independent certified arborist, paid for by the developer and selected by the Public Works Director, shall conduct all pruning on site. The independent arborist shall report to the City’s Arborist regarding any pruning activities.

22. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Pruning Standards.

23. For projects approved with specific exterior building colors, the developer shall paint a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may not be painted until inspected by the Community Development Department to verify that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required for this inspection.

24. All new electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building(s).

25. Buildings equipped with a fire sprinkler system shall also have a Fire Department Connection (FDC), which shall be located adjacent to a fire access roadway, be remote from all buildings outside the building collapse zone and screened to the maximum extent permitted by the Building Official or Fire Chief.

26. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located near a fire hydrant, which is no closer than 20 feet and no greater than 100 feet with no obstructions or barriers between the FDC and the hydrant such as roads or driveways.

27. Double detector check valve assemblies shall be located directly adjacent to or within the respective building to which they serve and screened to the maximum extent feasible.

28. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially important that gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems be completely screened from public view. All roof-mounted equipment which generates noise, solid particles, odors, etc., shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away from residential properties.

29. All conditions of this approval run with the land and shall be strictly adhered to, within the time frames specified, and in an on-going manner for the life of the project. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in an immediate enforcement action. If it is determined that violation(s) of these conditions of approval have occurred, or are occurring, this approval may be revoked pursuant to Development Code Section 16.08.100.

30. The developer shall reimburse the City for all costs associated with outside plan checks performed at either the developer’s or City’s request.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 21

31. The developer shall sweep streets in compliance with Standard Specifications Section 13-

4.03F.

32. For work requiring engineering inspections, working hours shall comply with Standard Specification Section 5-1.01.

33. Provide trash enclosure in compliance with Engineering Standard 9060 with solid/raindeflecting roof. Drain of trash enclosure to tie into the sewer interceptor or the onsite water quality BMP.

34. Trash enclosure area(s) shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials and shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and recycling container storage. Interior vehicle travel ways shall be designed to be capable of withstanding loads imposed by trash trucks.

35. All residential units shall be designed to mitigate impacts from non-residential project noise, in compliance with the City’s noise regulations.

36. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recent version of the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.

37. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Community Development Director in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 9.3 E. Provide One (1) set of paper prints and electronic documents on CD or flash drive in both AutoCAD and PDF format. AutoCAD drawings shall be in State plane coordinates.

38. Submit an electronic PDF file of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction.

39. Preserve existing survey monuments and vertical control benchmarks in compliance with Standard Specifications Section 5-1.26A.

40. Provide one (1) new vertical control survey benchmark, per City Standard, as directed by City Engineer.

41. Any modification to the conceptual plans that is determined not to be in substantial conformance shall be reviewed by staff and referred to the appropriate body for a recommendation to the Community Development Director.

BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

BUILDING CODES

42. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California Building Standards Code, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 22

FIRE LANES

43. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.

44. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines.

45. Any area that requires a red curb shall be maintained at all times. OSHA Red or similar paint is required with a highly reflective white paint stenciled on the red paint that reads:
“FIRE LANE – NO PARKING” in repeating intervals.

FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS

46. Project shall have a fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code.

47. Fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards and per the California Fire Code.

SECURITY KEY BOX

48. A Knox key box shall be installed as directed by the Fire Code Official when a building permit is obtained for any work. The key box shall contain keys that will allow the fire department access to all portions of the building. The keys shall have tags affixed identifying their purpose. The nominal height of the Knox box installations shall be 5 feet above grade.

Consult with the Fire Marshal for placement and specifications.

FIRE SPRINKLER

49. All buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code.

50. An approved NFPA13 fire sprinkler system is required for all buildings.

51. All NFPA 13 fire sprinkler systems are to be maintained accordingly. Annual flow testing is required and a current 5-year fire sprinkler certification is required for the life of the system.

52. All FDC’s and fire sprinkler risers shall be maintained with a protective coat of red paint (OSHA Red or similar) to protect against marine influences and rust for the life of the system.

53. All newly installed Fire Department connections will be required to install Knox brand FDC caps (or substantially similar as determined by the Fire Chief).

FIRE ACCESS

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 23

54. Provide Fire apparatus access per the California Fire Code Appendix D, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.

55. All gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with the following criteria:
a. The minimum gate width shall be twenty feet (20’) and remain unobstructed; b. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type;
c. Construction of all gates shall be of material that allows manual operation by one person; and
d. Gate components shall be maintained in operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when defective.

56. Required fire hydrants and FDCs shall be placed on the same side of the driveways with the following standards:
a. Be located within 40 feet of an approved roadway or driveway and arranged so that hose lines can be readily attached to the inlets without interference from any nearby objects including buildings, fences, posts, plantings or other fire department connections or otherwise approved by the Fire Chief or his or her designee; b. Be located within 50 feet of an approved hydrant location; c. Be situated so that the inlet height shall not be less than 18 inches or more than 48 inches above graed; and
d. Contain guard posts or other approved means in order to protect the devices from vehicular damage.

57. Pedestrian gates with approved exit hardware shall be required adjacent to any gate that crosses vehicular paths.

58. Fire hydrants and their distribution shall be in accordance with CFC Appendix CC. Any fire hydrant located on the property shall be flow tested and maintained with minimum of annual service or per the manufacturer’s recommendation.

59. No parking signs shall be installed and maintained at all times. Parking shall be allowed in designated stalls and garages only. Vehicle towing procedures shall be posted along with the relevant CVC code section.

60. Fire access roads shall be kept clear at all times.

FIRE ALARMS

61. Fire alarms shall be tested on a routine basis, including annual audible testing with the Five Cities Fire Authority present and in accordance with NFPA 72.

FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY (FCFA) CONDITIONS

62. An approved turnaround is required on any access road that exceeds 150 feet CFC D103.3.

63. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 24
exclusive of shoulders, and a vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Building A and Building B access roads shall be 26 feet in width. This includes any carport or canopies that may be over or near an access road. CFC 503.1.1 and D103.

64. Addressing including unit numbers shall be highly visible and illuminated in low light. A map of the complex near the entry is required.

65. All open spaces and planned vegetation shall be maintained for the life of the development in a manner that provides for adequate fire clearance from all structures, minimum height clearances for fire apparatus access roads, power lines, and in accordance with all vegetation management best practices to decrease the risk of wildfire and in accordance with CFC Chapter 47.

66. A vegetation management plan for management of the riparian and wildland areas shall be prepared by a licensed arborist, landscape architect, or registered forester.

67. The project location is in a high fire hazard zone and therefore shall comply with Chapter 7A CBC and WUI code construction.

68. All FDC’s for all buildings or areas of a building shall be all placed in one manifold at one central location and permanently labeled with signage identifying each connection to the specific building it protects. Consult with the Five Cities Fire Authority/Fire Marshal for FDC placement.

69. All roads and fire hydrants are required to be in place prior framing any buildings.

Combustible building materials delivered to the construction site require the Five Cities Fire Authority’s approval prior to delivery during phase 1.

70. Wet standpipes are required in all stairwells.

71. Stairwells shall go through the roof where required by Five Cities Fire Authority.

72. Any building providing an elevator shall have at least one elevator with the capacity to hold a gurney and emergency response personnel. The applicant shall build an elevator in Building A and will explore incorporating an elevator into Building B.

73. Fire Cities Fire Authority shall have access to all sides of the building from a fire apparatus access road no further than 150 feet or as otherwise permitted by Five Cities Fire Authority and the Building Official.

ABANDONMENT / NON-CONFORMING

74. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping, and other undesirable conditions.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 25

ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS

POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,

STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, AND ANNUAL

STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE

75. The Applicant shall develop, implement and provide the City the following:
a. Prior to a building or grading permit a Stormwater Control Plan that clearly provides engineering analysis of all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section

5.2.2. b. Prior to final acceptance an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Agreements that clearly establish responsibility for all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.2.3.
c. Annual Maintenance Notification indicating that all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls are being maintained and are functioning as designed.
d. All reports must be completed by either a Registered Civil Engineer or Qualified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer (QSD).

IMPROVEMENT PLANS

76. Public Improvement Plans, Site Civil Plans, and Maps shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Engineering Division as a separate submittal from any vertical construction/structures building improvement plans.

77. Improvement plans must comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 1 and shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State of California and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Community Development Department. The following plan sheet shall be provided:
a. Site Plan
i. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. ii. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. iii. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property. iv. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas. v. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. vi. Location of 100-year flood plain and any areas of inundation within project area.
b. Grading Plan with Cross Sections
c. Retaining Wall Plan and Profiles
d. Roadway Improvements Plan and Profiles
e. Storm Drainage Plan and Profile
f. Utilities - Water and Sewer Plan and Profile

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 26
g. Utilities – Composite Utility
h. Signing and Striping
i. Erosion Control
j. Landscape and Irrigation Plans for Public Right-of-Way k. Tree Protection Plan
l. Details
m. Notes
n. Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures
o. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis Obispo unit cost.

78. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Community Development Director including any referenced geotechnical report.

79. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements.

80. Applicant shall fund outsourced plan and map check services, as required.

81. The Developer shall provide an outlet structure for the Meadow Creek storm drain. A stormceptor and/or clarifier for the storm drain leading to Meadow Creek shall be required.

82. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right-of-way or within public easements.

83. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the turning radiuses within the project site, including access from James Way, can accommodate a range of vehicles from large trucks and buses to cars.

CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK

84. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk as directed by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director.

85. Install ADA compliant facilities where necessary or verify that existing facilities are compliant with State and City Standards. This includes the installation of two new ADA compliant commercial drive approaches. Ramps on James Way shall be brought up to City and State standards including the ramps on the northeast and southeast corners at the intersection of James Way and Oak Park Boulevard.

86. Install tree wells with root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. Street trees are to be selected from the 2025 street tree list included on the City’s website

87. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 27

DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS

88. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report.

The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing.

89. The applicant shall record easements for all public utility infrastructure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in a format approved by the City Attorney.

90. Unnecessary and excess easements shall be vacated to the greatest extent possible to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in a format approved by the City Attorney.

91. The Civil plans shall show an irrevocable offer to dedicate a creekside pedestrian path to the City. The location of the creekside path shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

92. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a new non-exclusive pedestrian trail easement. The easement instrument shall be to the satisfaction of the City Attorney.

93. Only native riparian plants shall be planted within the 32’ creek setback area. Detailed planting plans shall be submitted in advance of or concurrent with improvement plans.

94. Signs shall be posted prohibiting the use of herbicides or other toxic substances potentially harmful to creek habitat.

95. Fencing shall be installed along the pedestrian path that does not prohibit migration of fauna between the path and the riparian area.

96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a density bonus agreement entered into with, and supplied by, the City that restricts 15% of the project’s base density equivalent units as affordable to very low income households for at least 55 years (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(2), (c)(1)(A)). To comply with this requirement, seven base density equivalent units (i.e., 15% of the project’s 45.25 base density equivalent units) shall be so restricted, with: a live work unit counting as 0.5 units, a studio unit counting as 0.5 units, a 1-bedroom unit counting as 0.75 units, and a 2-bedroom unit counting as 1.0 units (AGMC § 16.36.030(C)).

As an alternative to restricting 15% of the project’s base density equivalent units as affordable to very low income households, the applicant may record a density bonus agreement, entered into with, and supplied by the City, that restricts 24% of the project’s base density equivalent units as affordable to lower income households for at least 55 years (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(2), (c)(1)(A)). To comply with this requirement, 11 base density equivalent units (i.e., 24% of the project’s 45.25 base density equivalent units) shall be so restricted, with: a live work unit counting as 0.5 units, a studio unit counting as 0.5 units, a 1-bedroom unit counting as 0.75 units, and a 2-bedroom unit counting as 1.0 units (AGMC § 16.36.030(C)). Under either

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 28
scenario, the density bonus agreement must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.

GRADING AND DRAINAGE

97. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit one (1) copy of the final project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCB) requirements.

98. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance and Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.

99. Drainage facilities shall be designed in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section

5.1.2. 100. Submit a geotechnical report for the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. The date of the soils report shall be less than 3 years old at the time of submittal.
101. The applicant shall dedicate a pedestrian access easement for the ADA sidewalk extension if constructed on private property outside of the right of way. 102. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil percolation tests. Infiltration test shall include adequate borings depth and frequency to support design recommendations.

WATER
103. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Public Works Director must grant permission to dead end water mains. 104. A Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines to the structures and/or landscape irrigation.
105. A Double Detector Check (DDC) backflow device is required on all new water service connections. Fire Department Connections (FDC) must be remote and locations to be approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief.
106. The DDC shall be placed inside the building or adjacent to the building. Other locations for the DDC shall be approved by the Director or Community Development. 107. Each parcel shall have separate water meters.
108. Non-potable water for construction is available at the Soto Sports Complex. The City of Arroyo Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 29
109. Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections. 110. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering Standard 6050.

SEWER
111. All sewer laterals shall comply with Engineering Standard 6810. 112. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering Standard 6050.
113. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. Laterals shall be sized for the appropriate use, minimum 4”.
114. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. 115. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District for the development’s impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance. 116. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District prior to relocation of any District facilities.
117. Submit a will-serve letter from South County Sanitary stating that the property access and location of trash receptacles is adequate for trash collection service.

PUBLIC UTILITIES
118. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16.68.050: All projects that involve the addition of over 100 square feet of habitable space shall be required to place service connections underground - existing and proposed utilities. 119. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all conditions of approval for project shall be satisfied.
120. Public Improvement plans and Final Map shall be submitted to the public utility companies for review and approval. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval.
121. Street lighting shall comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 3.1.2.Q. 122. Upon execution of PG&E contract, submit contract to the City. Include approved PG&E schematics in the project plan set.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 30

TREE PRESERVATION/TREE REMOVAL PLAN
123. Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance. 124. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer shall submit a tree preservation and tree removal plan to the Director of Public Works/City Arborist for undeveloped parcels or lots with trees. The plan shall include the location, size and species of all trees located on the lot or on adjoining lots, where development could affect the roots or limbs of trees on adjacent property.
125. All significant trees to be removed as designated by the Director of Public Works/City Arborist shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and planted on site. With the approval of the Public Works Director, tree removal shall be mitigated by planting on site, off-site, or payment of in-lieu fees (at the current street tree fee rate for a 15-gallon tree). Larger trees may be required to mitigate tree removal. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all trees shall be planted, or fees paid.
126. Prior to any work on the site, all trees to remain on site shall be marked with paint/ribbon and protected by a five (5') foot vinyl or chain link fence. The fence shall be located at a minimum of eight (8') foot radius from the trunk of the tree. 127. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the conditions of the Community Tree Ordinance (431 C.S.) which include but are not limited to:
a.___ No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved by the Parks and Recreation Director.
b.___ No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of any tree. c.___ No grading shall occur under a trees dripline, unless approved by the Public Works Director.
d.___ A five foot (5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8' from the trunk of each tree.
128. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Pruning Standards.

PUBLIC SAFETY
129. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Police Department approval.
130. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post accessible parking signage, per California Building Code Section 11A and other applicable standards. 131. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary alarm system per Police Department guidelines.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 31

FEES AND BONDS
The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following:
132. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO PLAN SUBMITTAL
a. Plan check for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate). b. Plan check for improvement plans (Based on an approved construction cost estimate).
c. Plan Review Fee (Based on the current Building Division fee schedule. NOTE:

The applicant is responsible to pay all fees associated with outside plan review consultants)
133. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT Subject to Government Code section 65589.5(o)(2)(A):
a. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City, involving water connection or enlargement of an existing connection. b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City . c. Water Meter charge to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City . d. Water Availability charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
e. Fire Protection Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City
f. Police Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
g. Park Development Impact Fee, the developer shall pay the current parks development fee for each unit approved for construction (credit shall be provided for existing houses), to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City. h. Recreation Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
i. Transportation Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
j. Storm Drain Development Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 32
k. Wastewater Development Impact Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
l. Sewer Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City . m. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Connection Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
n. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City .
o. Green Building Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City . p. General Plan Update Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City.
q. Technology Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City . r. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time that the project’s complete SB 330 preliminary application was submitted to the City. s. Permit Fee for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate). t. Inspection Fee of subdivision or public works construction plans (Based on an approved construction cost estimate).

BONDING SURETY
134. Erosion Control, prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, all new residential construction requires posting of a $1,200.00 performance bond for erosion control and damage to the public right-of-way. This bond is refundable upon successful completion of the work, less expenses incurred by the City in maintaining and/or restoring the site.

PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS
135. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide bicycle racks and storage units on project plans that are sufficient to support at least 15% of the units, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and consistent with applicable law. 136. The proposed parking garages shall be reserved for vehicle storage, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and consistent with applicable law.

California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66(b)(4)(B)

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 33
137. The applicant shall be required to have a tribal cultural monitor on-site during all grounddisturbing activities associated with the construction of the Project. Tribal monitoring shall occur as follows:
a. The California Native American tribe shall designate the monitor; b. The tribal monitor shall comply with applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements; and
c. The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as scope and duration of the project. 138. The applicant shall avoid any tribal cultural resources where feasible, in accordance with Public Resources code section 21084.3, subdivision (a). In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project application shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes. 139. All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner by the applicant, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21083.9.
140. The applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) archeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the project site.

Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
141. The applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. 142. The project shall comply with Health and Safety Code sections 7050.5 and 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe.
143. The applicant shall provide an application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the project.
144. Additional California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Requested by Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (SYBCI):
a. At the discretion of the tribes, Native American monitor may be present on the project site to observe any or all ground-disturbing activities. The Native American monitor will be the designated lead to represent tribal interest during construction. b. The monitor may observe all activities from a safe distance and within safely accessible portions of the project area. During ground-disturbing activities, the monitor may inspect back dirt piles for evidence of cultural materials, as well.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 34
c. The monitor may observe grading and grubbing by following the construction equipment as it removes soil or vegetation or both, walking safely accessible areas after the machinery has cleared, or standing to the side and observing the soil removal activity.
d. When deeper excavation or trenching is conducted, the monitor can observe the mechanical removal of soil and can carefully inspect the back dirt that is removed from the trench or pit. If it is safe to do so, the monitor can inspect the sidewalls of trenches and pits as they are exposed.
e. In the event that during grading, construction or development of the project, tribal cultural resources are uncovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered tribal cultural resource has been fully assessed by the SYBCI monitor. The Native American monitor will participate in and/or observe all archaeological investigations/fieldwork required to determine the nature and extent (as well as documentation) of the find. SYBCI will recover and retain all discovered tribal cultural resources in the form and/or manner SYBCI deems appropriate, in SYBCI’s sole discretion, and for any purpose SYBCI deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
f. The applicant’s full construction team shall receive a presentation regarding a Worker Environmental Awareness Plan (WEAP) prior to the start of any construction activities. The WEAP shall be presented by tribal representatives. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to construction activities.

LOS BERROS RD

N OAK PARK BLVD

S OAK PARK BLVD

N OAK PARK BLVD

BRIGHTON AVE

S ELM ST

S OAK PARK BLVD

VALLEY RD

S OAK PARK BLVD

S HALCYON RD

CHRISTMAS TREE PL

BRIGHTON AVE

TEMPLE ST

RAMONA AVE

W GRAND AVE

MARIO ST

STAGECOACH RD

CALLE DE LOS SUEI

CARPENTER CANYON RD

VIA DEL NORTE

TROUVILLE AVE

SEABRIGHT AVE

MANHATTAN AVE
23RD ST

BARBADOS ST

CALLE QUATRO

OAK WAY

LA DUE ST

SAN DIEGO LOOP

CIENAGA ST
24TH ST

J UDGE AVE

ROSE ST

HUASNA RD

BRANCH MILL RD

FARROLL RD

UNNAMED ST

LEO-MARIO ST

VALLEY RD

BEACH ST
25TH ST

ALSACE PL

MESETA PL

PRINTZ RD

OCEAN ST

OLD OAK PARK RD

UNNAMED ST PASO ROBLES ST

INDIAN HILLS WAY

THE PIKE
22ND ST

KAREN CT
21ST ST

DRIFTWOOD ST

NORMA LN

UNNAMED ST

RINCON CT

QUAN AVE

WILMAR AVE

REBECCA ST

NORMA LN

TERRY CT

ASTER ST

LA TIJERA CT

VIA DEL CENTRO

LAZY LN

MARIAN WAY

GENOVENI RD

CORBETT CANYON RD

PHILLIPS RD

TRINIDAD DR

TERRY DR

MARTINIQUE DR

HERMOSA CT

TULIP ST

NEWPORT AVE

DUNA VISTA DR

FERN ST

REDONDO CT

EL CAMINO REAL

LA ENTRADA LN

CARMEL CT

UNNAMED ST

NABAL CT

UNNAMED ST

UNNAMED ST

DARIEN CT

DUGAN DR
21ST CT

UNNAMED ST

LA TEENA PL

PEACOCK PL

VIA DEL RIO

SCOTT LEE DR

NEWPORT AVE
19TH ST

SYLVANRIDGE RD

WINDRIDGE PL

CALLE UNO

SAN SEBASTIAN CT

SARATOGA AVE

TERRY DR SAINT JOHN CIR

ALMA CT

MONA LEI CT

MOSS BEACH CT

JENNIFER CT

S ELM ST

MENTONE AVE

UNNAMED ST

TIERRA NUEVA LN

JANET DR

COAST VIEW DR

LA SELVA AVE

ROSE CT

ATLANTIC CITY AVE

LA JOLLA CT

MESA VIEW DR

SOLANA CT
20TH ST

MONACO CT

KARINA WAY

CAPISTRANO CT

HELENA ST

NOYES RD

KAREN WAY

RED ROCK RD
EVY LN

HASS LN
22ND ST

UNNAMED ST UNNAMED ST

ROCKAWAY AVE

PLANCHA WAY

PAMELA DR

WARNER ST

VISTA ST

UNNAMED ST

ROSS LN

UNNAMED ST

RAILROAD ST

HONDONADA RD

LAS CASITAS

FARROLL AVE

HENDERSON LN

E GRAND AVE

MELODY LN

BIG CANYON CT

TODOS SANTOS CT

RIVER AVE

HOLDEN AVE

PEDRO ST

LA COSTA CT

IRIS ST

ARABIAN WAY

FRONT ST

SHANNON LN

FRANCES WAY

LA B REA CT

NIPOMO ST

UNNAMED ST

TOBAGO ST

DAISEY ST

SHANNA PL

BEAR CANYONLN

ST NICKS PL

BILLS WAY

CRAIG WAY
N 16TH ST

NABAL CT

HAWK VIEW CT

LORIENDA CT

ROCHELLE WAY
S 16TH ST

JOYCE WAY
21ST ST

CORNERSTONE LN

JAMES WAY

VIA CASA VISTA

ERCI ACT

CATHEDRAL LN
20TH CT

UNNAMED ST

THYRRING ST

VIA P R IVADO

VIA ARTURO

ROOKER RANCH WAY

BADGER CANYON LN

DOVE CT

MARSEILLE CT

PINE TREE LN

UNNAMED ST

GOLDEN HAWK LN

LAGUNA CT

ROYAL OAK PL

QUEBRADA LN

RICHARD ST OCEAN AVE

SAVANNAH CIR

GWEN PL

CALLE TRES

SADDLE RD

WILSHIRE ST

SKYLINE DR

CALLE DOS

LAMPLIGHTER LN

LARA LN

PAINTED SKY WAY

PEACE LN

LEIF LN

FALCON CREST DR

DORIS LN

ACERO PL

NICE AVE

TULPEN DR

LABRADOR LN

DOWER AVE

OAK HILL RD

UNNAMED ST

BUCK RIDGE LN

DOWER AVE

WAYNE WAY

HIAWATHA LN

UNNAMED ST

UNNAMED ST

ANTIGUA DR

EFFIE WAY

COUNTRY OAK WAY

LA VERNE ST

WARNER ST

SAND CANYON CT

TANNER LN

UNNAMED CT

COFFEE LN

BASIN ST

DENNIS LN

COUNTRY HILLS LN

FOXEN BLUFF LN

LONGHORNLN

UNNAMED ST

TORREY PINE PL

CENTURY LN

LILAC ST

CALLE VISTA DEL ASTA

NAPLES ST

CHRISTINE WAY

HOLLY WAY

MARGO WAY

EL SUENO WAY

ELAINE WAY

PASEO LADERA LN

LA VIDA LN

UNNAMED ST

INDIAN HEIGHTS DR

SEVADA LN

HIDDEN PINE LN

UNNAMED ST

LONGBRANCH AVE

ALTA VISTA WAY

CASITAS LN

ECHO CANYON CT

GRELL LN

PHILLIPS RD

CREST DR

JANET AVE

ANITA AVE

SUMMIT DR

BADEN AVE

ROSEVINE LN

TAMERA DR

PEACEFUL POINT LN

SILVER WAY

VIA EL CIELO

VINTON LN

UNNAMED ST

ARROYO VISTA LN

LLAMA LN

CORSICA PL

UNNAMED ST

UNNAMED ST

PINE VIEWDR

NEWSOM SPRINGS RD

CANDICE CT

GRACIA WAY

SUNRAY PL

SILVER SPUR PL

HANSEN HILL RD

PLEASANT LN

UNNAMED ST

HIGH VIEW DR

MOORE LN

KODIAK LN

VIA MAR SOL

BRADY LN

UNNAMED ST

E EL CAMPO RD

QUAIL HILL LN

HERITAGE LN

UNNAMED ST

WINDERMERE LN

S HALCYON RD

ERHART RD

PALOMA PL

CASA PL

CORBEROSA DR

UNNAMED ST

JAMES WY

VALLEY RD

CRANBERRY ST

SPRUCE ST

MAPLE ST

W CHERRY AV

GRACE LN

LOS OLIVOS LN

S HALCYON RD

NEWPORT AV

HUASNA RD

CORBETT CANYON RD

TRAFFIC WY

FARROLL AV

THE PIKE

ALLEN ST
OAK ST

OAK PARK BLVD

W BRANCH ST

S TRAFFIC WY

LONGDEN DR

BENNETT AV

CORBETT CANYON RD

TAYLOR PL

WILDOAK PL

CARMELLA DR

FAIR OAKS AV

BELL ST

OAK PARK BLVD

HILLCREST DR

BRISCO RD

RANCHO PKWY

BRISCO RD

N HALCYON RD

E BRANCH ST

CLUBHOUSE CR

E GRAND AV

LE POINT ST

FAEH AV

WILDWOOD DR

SYCAMORE CT

DOS CERROS

LONGDEN CT

GARFIELD PL

SUNRISE TR CREEKVIEW WY

JASMINE PL

LADERA PL

WILDWOOD DR

CARRINGTON PL

MARIPOSA CR

LEANNA DR

S ALPINE ST

OUTLAND CT

CHELSEA CT

PRINTZ RD

S MASON ST

EQUESTRIAN WY

HAWKINS CT

WILSON CT

JASMINE PL

GROVE CT

S ELM ST

LEISURE DR

NELSON ST

PLATINO LN

MAYDOCK ST

CARDINAL CT

LA PAZ CR

CERRO VISTA CR

VERNONST

W BRANCH ST

S COURTLAND ST

JASMINE PL

NEVADA ST

WOODLAND DR

RICE CT

MCKINLEY ST

MEADOW WY

VIA LA BARRANCA

JASMINE PL

CROWN HILL

TIGER TAIL DR

PARAISO

GULARTE RD

SHORT ST

N VIA BELMONTE

BAKEMAN LN

RUTH ANN WY

MILLER CR

W CHERRY AV

BRIDGE ST

BETA CT

DIAMOND CR

BRITTANY AV

OPAL CR

GARDEN ST

VILLAGE CT

WOODLAND CT

ROSEMARY LN

PLATINOLN

LE POINT TR

STAGECOACH RD

ROBLES RD

FLORA RD

EL CAMINO REAL
ASH ST

PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PL

CALLIE CT

FORTUNA CT

PALOS SECOS

CUERDA CORTE

GARFIELD PL

TOYON PL

CHAPARRAL LN

N ELM ST LINDA DR

BOYSENBERRY ST

RUSS CT

MESQUITE LN

PLOMO CT

GRIEB DR

VARD LOOMIS LN

WHITELEY ST

S VIA AVANTE CT

ROBIN CR

N MASON ST

CALLE CARMAN

TRAFFIC WY

CUESTA PL

SALIDA DEL SOL

ROGERS CT

PRINTZ RD

HILLSIDE CT

CALLE CUERVO

HIDDEN OAK RD

MAGNOLIA DR

HAVEN CT

CROWN TR

OAK LEAF CR

WALLACE PL

MUIRFIELD DR

DEL MAR

MEADOWLARK DR

LE POINT ST

TAYLOR PL

SWEET PEA CT

QUAIL CT

QUAIL RIDGE CT

CLINTON CT

GARDEN ST

PAUL PL

LA CRESTA DR

LEDO PL

GAYNFAIR TR

POPLAR ST

HARRISON ST

WHITE CT

WALNUT ST

OAK HILL RD

HART LN

N COURTLAND ST

COLLADO CORTE

DODSON WY

ALDER ST

SYCAMORE DR

E GRAND AV

DOS CERROS

VIA POCA

FAIR VIEW DR

MYRTLE ST

CROSS ST

ASPEN ST

PRADERA CT

TRINITY AV

ROBLES RD

TALLY HO RD

CLARENCE AV

SHORT ST

CASTILLO

JENNY PL

VIA VAQUERO

W BRANCH ST
ALLEY

GLENBROOK WY

VERDE PL

LOS CIERVOS
ORO DR
IDE ST

FARROLL AV

BRIGHTON AV

CROWNHILL

MUSTANG CR

S VIA FIRENZE CT N VIA FIRENZE CT

POOLE ST

HODGES RD

BRIGHTON AV

VISTA DR

ROSEMARY CT

CASTILLO DEL MAR

OLOHAN ALLEY

E CHERRY AV

WESLEY ST

CORNWALL AV

N HALCYON RD

SCENIC CR

STRAWBERRY AV

VIA LAS AGUILAS

FIELD VIEW PL

PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PL

BAMBI CT

OAK PARK BLVD

PECAN PL

PLATA RD

LA CANADA

N RENA ST

N ALPINE ST

RODEO DR

MULBERRY LN

NOGUERA PL

WILTON PL

CREEKSIDE DR

W LEPOI N T ST
MAY ST

CORONA DEL TERRA

LA VISTA CT

VISTA CR

FOREST GLEN DR

PLATINO LN

FARM HOUSE PL

PILGRIM WY

CEDAR ST

LINDA DR

S RENA ST REFUGIOPL

EMERALD BAY DR

RASPBERRY AV

PASEOST

BLACKBERRY AV

DEL SUR

PALM CT

PARK WY

NOEL ST

STEVENSON DR

LEEDHAM PL

VIA BANDOLERO

ANDRE DR

PRISCILLA LN

SIERRA DR

WALNUT ST

EMAN CT

VIA BERROS

COBRE PL

COLINA ST

LEMON LN

MERCEDES LN

LOGANBERRYAV

GARDEN ST

LANCASTER DR

HUCKLEBERRY AV

LIERLY LN

IKEDA WY

BLUEBERRY AV

CLEVENGER DR

ROSEWOOD LN

P AULDING C R

CAMPANA PL

CERRO VISTA LN

BEDLOE LN

CALIFORNIA ST

ORCHARD AV

LAUNA LN

NEWMAN DR

CAMINO MERCADO

NOYES RD

OAKWOOD CT

MILLER WY

SAGE ST

CAMERON CT

RESERVOIR RD

CEDAR ST

JUNIPER ST

ARCADIA

AVENIDA DE DIAMANTE

COACH RD

S VIA BELMONTE

ARABIAN CR

CAROL PL

ARROYO AV

CORRALPL

PINE ST

STILLWELL DR

MYRTLE DR

GOLDEN WEST PL

CLARENCE AV
WOODPL

SANDALWOOD AV
ASILO

LOS BERROS RD

DIANA PL

BROADMOORDR

TANNER LN

BRANCH MILL RD

RALPH BEC K NL

VICTORIAN CT

GREENWOOD DR

ORCHID LN

KINGSBURY CT

COVINGTON DR

EATON DR

DEVONSHIRE DR

OLIVE ST

CANYON WY

PECAN ST

BEECH ST

WALLER PL

DEL SOL ST

TODD LN

TIERRA ST

RIDGEVIEW WY

DIXSON ST

VICTORIAWY

FARNSWORTH DR

STARLIGHT LN

DEER TRAIL CR

JENNINGS DR

MORNING RISE LN

WILLOW LN

GLENOAK DR

HACIENDA DR

INNESLEY DR

ORCHARD AV

PACIFI C POINT E WY

MATTHEW WY

CINDY WY

STANLEY AV

VIRGINIA DR

TALLY HO RD

LARCHMONT DR

SOMBRILLO WY

MESA DR

NEWPORT AV

HUEBNER LN

ZOGATA WY

MONTEGO ST

SPANISH MOSS LN

TURQUOISE DR PEARL DR

PEARWOOD AV

STATION WY

VILLAGE GLEN DR

VALLEY RD

PUESTA DEL SOL

ACORN DR

CHILTON ST

EASY ST

OLD RANCH RD

HILLCREST DR

SUNSET DR

TEMPUS CR

TEMPUS CR

STONECREST DR

ELDERBERRY CT

ELDERBE R RY CT

STONECREST DR
1 1
1 227
¤101
¤101
¤101
227
227
¤101
¤101
¤101
D-2.13
D-2.20
PD 1.1
PD 1.2
PD 1.3
PD 1.4
PD 1.5
D-2.11
D-2.1
D-2.10
D-2.5
D-2.6
D-2.7
D-2.8
D-2.9
AG 2.2

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE PRESERVE

RESIDENTIAL ESTATE

RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE

RESIDENTIAL RURAL

RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN

SINGLE FAMILY

VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL

MULTI-FAMILY

MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT

MOBILE HOME PARK

MULTI-FAMILY VERY HIGH DENSITY

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

GATEWAY MIXED-USE

FAIR OAKS MIXED-USE

HIGHWAY MIXED-USE

VILLAGE MIXED USE

VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN

TRAFFIC WAY MIXED-USE

INDUSTRIAL MIXED-USE

OFFICE MIXED-USE

REGIONAL COMMERCIAL

PUBLIC FACILITY

DESIGN OVERLAY

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

SPECIFIC PLAN

PUBLIC FACILITY
Berry Gardens
D-2.4 D-2.4
ZONING CATEGORIES ZONING OVERLAYS CREEKSIDE JUNCTION 0068-07-RS23 17 MARCH 2026
T1 TITLE SHEET

CREEKSIDE JUNCTION

PERSPECTIVE VIEW - LOBBY ENTRY

PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER: SHEPPEL ARROYO GRANDE, LLC
C/O RUSSELL M. SHEPPEL
1202 SHORELINE DRIVE
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93109
EMAIL: [email protected]
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1271 AND 1281 JAMES WAY
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420
APN: 007-771-080 AND 007-771-081
ARCHITECT: RRM DESIGN GROUP
3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: DARIN CABRAL
PHONE: (805)-543-1794
EMAIL: [email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER: COAST ENGINEERING & DESIGN
785 HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: LYDIA LYNCH
PHONE: (805)242-6365
EMAIL: [email protected]
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: FIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC
187 TANK FARM ROAD, SUITE 230
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: LINDSAY CORSIA
PHONE: (805)781-9800
EMAIL: LINDSAY@FIRMACONSULTANTS.

COM

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF UP TO 92 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT ON TWO VACANT LOTS TOTALING 1.81 ACRES COMBINED. THESE

UNITS ARE PROVIDED IN TWO BUILDINGS, BUILDING A AND BUILDING B. BUILDING A IS THE LARGER OF THE BUILDINGS AND WILL INCLUDE AN ELEVATOR. BOTH BUILDINGS WILL BE FOUR STORIES IN A SPLIT-LEVEL PAD CONCEPT. TO ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED 92 UNITS, AND BASED

ON THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PARCEL, THE PROJECT IS
REQUESTING A 50% DENSITY BONUS. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE (3) CONCESSIONS: REMOVAL OF THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT

REQUIREMENTS, REDUCTION OF REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES, AND REMOVAL OF REQUIRED PARKING AREA LANDSCAPING.

THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT VACATION,

PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PATH VACATION, A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC

WATER EASEMENT VACATION AND A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WATER

MAIN ADANDONEMENT,

PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CASE 16-001, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PER INST. NO. 2019- 029358 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY

SHEET INDEX
T1 TITLE SHEET
A2 EXISTING SITE SURVEY
A3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A4 LEVEL 1 AND 2 - BASEMENT FLOOR PLANS
A5 LEVEL 3 - SECOND FLOOR BLDG A & GROUND FLOOR BLDG B
A6 LEVEL 4 - THIRD FLOOR BLDG A & SECOND FLOOR BLDG B
A7 LEVEL 5 - ROOF BLDG A & THIRD FLOOR BLDG B
A8 LEVEL 6 - ROOF PLAN
A9 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
A10 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS
A11 ELEVATIONS
A12 SITE SECTIONS
A13 ENLARGED SITE SECTIONS
A14 BIRD’S EYE PHOTO MATCH
A15 VIEW ANALYSIS PHOTO MATCH PERSPECTIVES FROM JAMES WAY A16 COLOR AND MATERIALS
A17 DETAIL VIGNETTES
A18 TRASH ENCLOSURE
C0 TITLE SHEET
C1 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C3 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS
C4 BOUNDARY AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS
L1 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN

PROJECT STATISTICS

ZONING OFFICE MIXED USE
PARCEL SIZE: 1.81 ACRES (78,892 SF)
DENSITY: 25 DENSITY UNIT/ACRE
BUILDING A GROSS AREA 77,269 SF
BASEMENT 13,921 SF
GROUND FLOOR 21,116 SF
SECOND FLOOR 21,116 SF
THIRD FLOOR 21,116 SF
BUILDING B GROSS AREA 25,090 SF
BASEMENT 4,429 SF
GROUND FLOOR 6,887 SF
SECOND FLOOR 6,887 SF
THIRD FLOOR 6,887 SF
MAX LOT COVERAGE: 70% (55,224 SF)
PROPOSED COVERAGE: 35.5% (GROUND FLOOR/PARCEL SIZE)
MAX. F.A.R. 1.0 (78,892 SF)
PROPOSED F.A.R. 1.30 (BUILDING GROSS/ PARCEL SIZE)
DISTURBED AREA: +/- 76,600 SF
PERVIOUS PAVERS +/- 7,900 SF
NEW/REPLACEMENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (BLDG, AC

PAVING & CONCRETE)
+/- 56,500 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA: +/- 12,200 SF (15.5%)
MAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT: 35 FT.

MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT: 45 FT.

YARD SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSED
FRONT 0-10
SIDE 0-5
REAR 0-15

VICINITY MAP

ZONING MAP

PARKING
AUTO

PARKING

CALCULATION SPACE
COUNT

PARKING
REQUIRED:

TOTAL REQUIRED FOR

PROPOSED PROJECT
99 SPACES

RESIDENTIAL SPACE PER UNIT TYPE
20 STUDIOS (1 EA)
58 1BEDS (1 EA)
14 2BEDS (1.5 EA)
20+58+21

PARKING

PROVIDED

GARAGE SPACES UNDER BUILDING
31 SPACES
31 SPACES

EV PARKING
AUTO

PARKING

CALCULATION SPACE
COUNT

MINIMUM

PARKING
REQUIRED:
1 SPACE PER UNIT 99 SPACES
EV CAPABLE 10% OF PARKING 10
EV READY 25% OF PARKING 25
EV CHARGES 5% OF PARKING 5
40 DENSITY/UNIT COUNT
DENSITY 25/ACRE COUNT
PROPOSED:

UNIT MIX STUDIOS 20
1 BEDROOMS 58
2 BEDROOMS 14
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 92
PROPOSED DENSITY STUDIOS = .5 DU EACH 10 DU
1 BED = .75 DU EACH 43.5 DU
2 BED = 1 DU EACH 14 DU
TOTAL DENSITY UNITS 67.5 DU
ALLOWED DENSITY 1.81AC * 25 DU/AC= 45.25 DU
AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUS 50% = 1.5 * 45.5 = 67.875 DU
SITE

JAMES WAY
BRANCH ST.

OAK PARK BLVD.

LOS BERROS RD

N OAK PARK BLVD

S OAK PARK BLVD

N OAK PARK BLVD

BRIGHTON AVE

S ELM ST

S OAK PARK BLVD

VALLEY RD

S OAK PARK BLVD

S HALCYON RD

CHRISTMAS TREE PL

BRIGHTON AVE

TEMPLE ST

RAMONA AVE

W GRAND AVE

MARIO ST

STAGECOACH RD

CALLE DE LOS SUEI

CARPENTER CANYON RD

VIA DEL NORTE

TROUVILLE AVE

SEABRIGHT AVE

MANHATTAN AVE
23RD ST

BARBADOS ST

CALLE QUATRO

OAK WAY

LA DUE ST

SAN DIEGO LOOP

CIENAGA ST
24TH ST

J UDGE AVE

ROSE ST

HUASNA RD

BRANCH MILL RD

FARROLL RD

UNNAMED ST

LEO-MARIO ST

VALLEY RD

BEACH ST
25TH ST

ALSACE PL

MESETA PL

PRINTZ RD

OCEAN ST

OLD OAK PARK RD

UNNAMED ST PASO ROBLES ST

INDIAN HILLS WAY

THE PIKE
22ND ST

KAREN CT
21ST ST

DRIFTWOOD ST

NORMA LN

UNNAMED ST

RINCON CT

QUAN AVE

WILMAR AVE

REBECCA ST

NORMA LN

TERRY CT

ASTER ST

LA TIJERA CT

VIA DEL CENTRO

LAZY LN

MARIAN WAY

GENOVENI RD

CORBETT CANYON RD

PHILLIPS RD

TRINIDAD DR

TERRY DR

MARTINIQUE DR

HERMOSA CT

TULIP ST

NEWPORT AVE

DUNA VISTA DR

FERN ST

REDONDO CT

EL CAMINO REAL

LA ENTRADA LN

CARMEL CT

UNNAMED ST

NABAL CT

UNNAMED ST

UNNAMED ST

DARIEN CT

DUGAN DR
21ST CT

UNNAMED ST

LA TEENA PL

PEACOCK PL

VIA DEL RIO

SCOTT LEE DR

NEWPORT AVE
19TH ST

SYLVANRIDGE RD

WINDRIDGE PL

CALLE UNO

SAN SEBASTIAN CT

SARATOGA AVE

TERRY DR SAINT JOHN CIR

ALMA CT

MONA LEI CT

MOSS BEACH CT

JENNIFER CT

S ELM ST

MENTONE AVE

UNNAMED ST

TIERRA NUEVA LN

JANET DR

COAST VIEW DR

LA SELVA AVE

ROSE CT

ATLANTIC CITY AVE

LA JOLLA CT

MESA VIEW DR

SOLANA CT
20TH ST

MONACO CT

KARINA WAY

CAPISTRANO CT

HELENA ST

NOYES RD

KAREN WAY

RED ROCK RD
EVY LN

HASS LN
22ND ST

UNNAMED ST UNNAMED ST

ROCKAWAY AVE

PLANCHA WAY

PAMELA DR

WARNER ST

VISTA ST

UNNAMED ST

ROSS LN

UNNAMED ST

RAILROAD ST

HONDONADA RD

LAS CASITAS

FARROLL AVE

HENDERSON LN

E GRAND AVE

MELODY LN

BIG CANYON CT

TODOS SANTOS CT

RIVER AVE

HOLDEN AVE

PEDRO ST

LA COSTA CT

IRIS ST

ARABIAN WAY

FRONT ST

SHANNON LN

FRANCES WAY

LA B REA CT

NIPOMO ST

UNNAMED ST

TOBAGO ST

DAISEY ST

SHANNA PL

BEAR CANYONLN

ST NICKS PL

BILLS WAY

CRAIG WAY
N 16TH ST

NABAL CT

HAWK VIEW CT

LORIENDA CT

ROCHELLE WAY
S 16TH ST

JOYCE WAY
21ST ST

CORNERSTONE LN

JAMES WAY

VIA CASA VISTA

ERCI ACT

CATHEDRAL LN
20TH CT

UNNAMED ST

THYRRING ST

VIA P R IVADO

VIA ARTURO

ROOKER RANCH WAY

BADGER CANYON LN

DOVE CT

MARSEILLE CT

PINE TREE LN

UNNAMED ST

GOLDEN HAWK LN

LAGUNA CT

ROYAL OAK PL

QUEBRADA LN

RICHARD ST OCEAN AVE

SAVANNAH CIR

GWEN PL

CALLE TRES

SADDLE RD

WILSHIRE ST

SKYLINE DR

CALLE DOS

LAMPLIGHTER LN

LARA LN

PAINTED SKY WAY

PEACE LN

LEIF LN

FALCON CREST DR

DORIS LN

ACERO PL

NICE AVE

TULPEN DR

LABRADOR LN

DOWER AVE

OAK HILL RD

UNNAMED ST

BUCK RIDGE LN

DOWER AVE

WAYNE WAY

HIAWATHA LN

UNNAMED ST

UNNAMED ST

ANTIGUA DR

EFFIE WAY

COUNTRY OAK WAY

LA VERNE ST

WARNER ST

SAND CANYON CT

TANNER LN

UNNAMED CT

COFFEE LN

BASIN ST

DENNIS LN

COUNTRY HILLS LN

FOXEN BLUFF LN

LONGHORNLN

UNNAMED ST

TORREY PINE PL

CENTURY LN

LILAC ST

CALLE VISTA DEL ASTA

NAPLES ST

CHRISTINE WAY

HOLLY WAY

MARGO WAY

EL SUENO WAY

ELAINE WAY

PASEO LADERA LN

LA VIDA LN

UNNAMED ST

INDIAN HEIGHTS DR

SEVADA LN

HIDDEN PINE LN

UNNAMED ST

LONGBRANCH AVE

ALTA VISTA WAY

CASITAS LN

ECHO CANYON CT

GRELL LN

PHILLIPS RD

CREST DR

JANET AVE

ANITAAVE

SUMMIT DR

BADEN AVE

ROSEVINE LN

TAMERA DR

PEACEFUL POINT LN

SILVER WAY

VIA EL CIELO

VINTON LN

UNNAMED ST

ARROYO VISTA LN

LLAMA LN

CORSICA PL

UNNAMED ST

UNNAMED ST

PINE VIEWDR

NEWSOM SPRINGS RD

CANDICE CT

GRACIA WAY

SUNRAY PL

SILVER SPUR PL

HANSEN HILL RD

PLEASANT LN

UNNAMED ST

HIGH VIEW DR

MOORE LN

KODIAK LN

VIA MAR SOL

BRADY LN

UNNAMED ST

E EL CAMPO RD

QUAIL HILL LN

HERITAGE LN

UNNAMED ST

WINDERMERE LN

S HALCYON RD

ERHART RD

PALOMA PL

CASA PL

CORBEROSA DR

UNNAMED ST

JAMES WY

VALLEY RD

CRANBERRY ST

SPRUCE ST

MAPLE ST

W CHERRY AV

GRACE LN

LOS OLIVOS LN

S HALCYON RD

NEWPORT AV

HUASNA RD

CORBETT CANYON RD

TRAFFIC WY

FARROLL AV

THE PIKE

ALLEN ST
OAK ST

OAK PARK BLVD

W BRANCH ST

S TRAFFIC WY

LONGDEN DR

BENNETT AV

CORBETT CANYON RD

TAYLOR PL

WILDOAK PL

CARMELLA DR

FAIR OAKS AV

BELL ST

OAK PARK BLVD

HILLCREST DR

BRISCO RD

RANCHO PKWY

BRISCO RD

N HALCYON RD

E BRANCH ST

CLUBHOUSE CR

E GRAND AV

LE POINT ST

FAEH AV

WILDWOOD DR

SYCAMORE CT

DOS CERROS

LONGDEN CT

GARFIELD PL

SUNRISE TR CREEKVIEW WY

JASMINE PL

LADERA PL

WILDWOOD DR

CARRINGTON PL

MARIPOSA CR

LEANNA DR

S ALPINE ST

OUTLAND CT

CHELSEA CT

PRINTZ RD

S MASON ST

EQUESTRIAN WY

HAWKINS CT

WILSON CT

JASMINE PL

GROVE CT

S ELM ST

LEISURE DR

NELSON ST

PLATINO LN

MAYDOCK ST

CARDINAL CT

LA PAZ CR

CERRO VISTA CR

VERNONST

W BRANCH ST

S COURTLAND ST

JASMINE PL

NEVADA ST

WOODLAND DR

RICE CT

MCKINLEY ST

MEADOW WY

VIA LA BARRANCA

JASMINE PL

CROWN HILL

TIGER TAIL DR

PARAISO

GULARTE RD

SHORT ST

N VIA BELMONTE

BAKEMAN LN

RUTH ANN WY

MILLER CR

W CHERRY AV

BRIDGE ST

BETA CT

DIAMOND CR

BRITTANY AV

OPAL CR

GARDEN ST

VILLAGE CT

WOODLAND CT

ROSEMARY LN

PLATINOLN

LE POINT TR

STAGECOACH RD

ROBLES RD

FLORA RD

EL CAMINO REAL
ASH ST

PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PL

CALLIE CT

FORTUNA CT

PALOS SECOS

CUERDA CORTE

GARFIELD PL

TOYON PL

CHAPARRAL LN

N ELM ST LINDA DR

BOYSENBERRY ST

RUSS CT

MESQUITE LN

PLOMO CT

GRIEB DR

VARD LOOMIS LN

WHITELEY ST

S VIA AVANTE CT

ROBIN CR

N MASON ST

CALLE CARMAN

TRAFFIC WY

CUESTA PL

SALIDA DEL SOL

ROGERS CT

PRINTZ RD

HILLSIDE CT

CALLE CUERVO

HIDDEN OAK RD

MAGNOLIA DR

HAVEN CT

CROWN TR

OAK LEAF CR

WALLACE PL

MUIRFIELD DR

DEL MAR

MEADOWLARK DR

LE POINT ST

TAYLOR PL

SWEET PEA CT

QUAIL CT

QUAIL RIDGE CT

CLINTON CT

GARDEN ST

PAUL PL

LA CRESTA DR

LEDO PL

GAYNFAIR TR

POPLAR ST

HARRISON ST

WHITE CT

WALNUT ST

OAK HILL RD

HART LN

N COURTLAND ST

COLLADO CORTE

DODSON WY

ALDER ST

SYCAMORE DR

E GRAND AV

DOS CERROS

VIA POCA

FAIR VIEW DR

MYRTLE ST

CROSS ST

ASPEN ST

PRADERA CT

TRINITY AV

ROBLES RD

TALLY HO RD

CLARENCE AV

SHORT ST

CASTILLO

JENNY PL

VIA VAQUERO

W BRANCH ST
ALLEY

GLENBROOK WY

VERDE PL

LOS CIERVOS
ORO DR
IDE ST

FARROLL AV

BRIGHTON AV

CROWNHILL

MUSTANG CR

S VIA FIRENZE CT N VIA FIRENZE CT

POOLE ST

HODGES RD

BRIGHTON AV

VISTA DR

ROSEMARY CT

CASTILLO DEL MAR

OLOHAN ALLEY

E CHERRY AV

WESLEY ST

CORNWALL AV

N HALCYON RD

SCENIC CR

STRAWBERRY AV

VIA LAS AGUILAS

FIELD VIEW PL

PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PL

BAMBI CT

OAK PARK BLVD

PECAN PL

PLATA RD

LA CANADA

N RENA ST

N ALPINE ST

RODEO DR

MULBERRY LN

NOGUERA PL

WILTON PL

CREEKSIDE DR

W LEPOI N T ST
MAY ST

CORONA DEL TERRA

LA VISTA CT

VISTA CR

FOREST GLEN DR

PLATINO LN

FARM HOUSE PL

PILGRIM WY

CEDAR ST

LINDA DR

S RENA ST REFUGIOPL

EMERALD BAY DR

RASPBERRY AV

PASEOST

BLACKBERRY AV

DEL SUR

PALM CT

PARK WY

NOEL ST

STEVENSON DR

LEEDHAM PL

VIA BANDOLERO

ANDRE DR

PRISCILLA LN

SIERRA DR

WALNUT ST

EMAN CT

VIA BERROS

COBRE PL

COLINA ST

LEMON LN

MERCEDES LN

LOGANBERRYAV

GARDEN ST

LANCASTER DR

HUCKLEBERRY AV

LIERLY LN

IKEDA WY

BLUEBERRY AV

CLEVENGER DR

ROSEWOOD LN

P AULDING C R

CAMPANA PL

CERRO VISTA LN

BEDLOE LN

CALIFORNIA ST

ORCHARD AV

LAUNA LN

NEWMAN DR

CAMINO MERCADO

NOYES RD

OAKWOOD CT

MILLER WY

SAGE ST

CAMERON CT

RESERVOIR RD

CEDAR ST

JUNIPER ST

ARCADIA

AVENIDA DE DIAMANTE

COACH RD

S VIA BELMONTE

ARABIAN CR

CAROL PL

ARROYO AV

CORRALPL

PINE ST

STILLWELL DR

MYRTLE DR

GOLDEN WEST PL

CLARENCE AV
WOODPL

SANDALWOOD AV
ASILO

LOS BERROS RD

DIANA PL

BROADMOORDR

TANNER LN

BRANCH MILL RD

RALPH BEC K NL

VICTORIAN CT

GREENWOOD DR

ORCHID LN

KINGSBURY CT

COVINGTON DR

EATON DR

DEVONSHIRE DR

OLIVE ST

CANYON WY

PECAN ST

BEECH ST

WALLER PL

DEL SOL ST

TODD LN

TIERRA ST

RIDGEVIEW WY

DIXSON ST

VICTORIAWY

FARNSWORTH DR

STARLIGHT LN

DEER TRAIL CR

JENNINGS DR

MORNING RISE LN

WILLOW LN

GLENOAK DR

HACIENDA DR

INNESLEY DR

ORCHARD AV

PACIFI C POINT E Y W

MATTHEW WY

CINDY WY

STANLEY AV

VIRGINIA DR

TALLY HO RD

LARCHMONT DR

SOMBRILLO WY

MESA DR

NEWPORT AV

HUEBNER LN

ZOGATA WY

MONTEGO ST

SPANISH MOSS LN

TURQUOISE DR PEARL DR

PEARWOOD AV

STATION WY

VILLAGE GLEN DR

VALLEY RD

PUESTA DEL SOL

ACORN DR

CHILTON ST

EASY ST

OLD RANCH RD

HILLCREST DR

SUNSET DR

TEMPUS CR

TEMPUS CR

STONECREST DR

ELDERBERRY CT

ELDERBE R RY CT

STONECREST DR
1 1
1 227
¤101
¤101
¤101
227
227
¤101
¤101
¤101
D-2.13
D-2.20
PD 1.1
PD 1.2
PD 1.3
PD 1.4
PD 1.5
D-2.11
D-2.1
D-2.10
D-2.5
D-2.6
D-2.7
D-2.8
D-2.9
AG 2.2
Last Updated September 2018

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE PRESERVE

RESIDENTIAL ESTATE

RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE

RESIDENTIAL RURAL

RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN

SINGLE FAMILY

VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL

MULTI-FAMILY

MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT

MOBILE HOME PARK

MULTI-FAMILY VERY HIGH DENSITY

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

GATEWAY MIXED-USE

FAIR OAKS MIXED-USE

HIGHWAY MIXED-USE

VILLAGE MIXED USE

VILLAGE CORE DOWNTOWN

TRAFFIC WAY MIXED-USE

INDUSTRIAL MIXED-USE

OFFICE MIXED-USE

REGIONAL COMMERCIAL

PUBLIC FACILITY

DESIGN OVERLAY

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

SPECIFIC PLAN

PUBLIC FACILITY
Berry Gardens
D-2.4 D-2.4
1 in = 800 ft

ZONING CATEGORIES ZONING OVERLAYS
SITE

EXHIBIT B